The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
Again, Heidegger himself was a being out in the world with others. And some of the others were Nazis. So, where with respect to his philosophy of Dasein do they come into the picture in regard to Aletheia? Whose truth? Their truth? The truths espoused instead by the Jews or the Communists or those who championed democracy and the rule of law? In regard to what context? And demonstrated to be the truth for all rational and virtuous human beings…how?
Anyone here care to cite such existential references from Being and Time?
Of course, my point here is that, while many might hide themselves or disguise themselves from others, they are convinced that they truly do know themselves. Then I propose that even the manner in which we think we do know ourselves is predicated on any number of variables in our lives that are beyond our complete understanding of or control over. The existential parameters of “I” rooted in the points I make in my signature threads.
I’ve always thought of Satre’s “Hell is other people” as revolving around the fact that the “inauthentic” others try to objectify us. But my point is that “inauthentically” many of us objectify ourselves. Anything in a No God world to keep from becoming “fractured and fragmented” as “I” am in regarding to value judgments.
Yes, in order to sustain a “togetherness” among others we might “fall” into one or another perceived “common good”. And if they happen to be Nazis…?
But what is Heidegger’s excuse then? Perhaps that he saw the Nazis themselves as living a more “authentic” life?
We’ll need a context, of course.
Ha!!!
More words referring to other words.
She wont stop.
Walls of words, critiquing walls of words.
Her own contributions are repetitive and dull. Like Karen.
Nagging.
Up in the clouds, as she then accuses others of what is over her understanding.
She remains clueless.
All she has is a method.
Words used to undermine words.
Words referring to pages of texts, full of words.
Does she connect her words to actinos…to what is independent from her subjectivity?
No.
She can’t…she wont.
She want sot change the world, by bringing it down.
The altruistic motive is a cover for her personal motives…vengeance against mankind and the world that failed to become what she wanted it to become.
From PN:
Note to Alexis Jacobi:
I’m still not sure if you are a replicate of him or he is a replicate of you, but if you do ever decide to post at KT and get “disappeared” there as I was, I thought I’d provide you ahead of time with how, rooted existentially in dasein, Satyr rationalizes this:
This from the man who above all else demands to be thought of as a “serious philosopher”. And, in order to assure that the evil of diversity doesn’t sprout like a weed at KT, every single poster there thinks exactly as he does:
They can post new topics in this forum
They can reply to topics in this forum
As for the part about morality, note this:
And then when you ask, “given what context?”
See how his mind works? Sex understood “naturally”, “biologically”, “genetically” must always revolve around reproduction.
But what of those who practice incest in order to embody feelings of love for each other or in order to provide each other with pleasure…and make sure there is no possibility of a pregnancy. What if the “sexual relations” they have doesn’t involve actual copulation at all?
Same with homosexuality. To say that it is not normally the choice of men and women is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is unnatural. How can anything that human beings do, in being a part of nature, be unnatural?
Then the part that revolves around this: google.com/search?q=is+homo … s-wiz-serp
No, instead, in my view, Satyr is just like all the rest of us. He lived a particular life and given a unique accumulation of personal experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge, he came to acquire existentially/subjectively a particular political prejudice regarding human sexuality. The part I root in dasein.
Just like you did and I did.
Then the question I always ask you in regard to sex and race and gender and Jews, etc.
If you were in power in any particular community, which behaviors/relationships would be rewarded and which punished? And, if punished, how?
Oh…my…gld…
Karen is defending incest.
and paedophilia, I am sure.
Necrophilia…bestiality…
Do you se now with what we are dealing?
Degeneracy.
She understood nothing…if the mother/son, father/daughter sexual relationship produces no children…then it is fine.
Did she read the part where morality imposes limits to individual behaviour to inhibit behaviours that decrease a group’s survival potentials?
There is the definition, Karen was looking for…but she does not like it.
Imagine a group where all these sexual fetishes were practiced…how long would the group survive?
How long would it be able to remain competitive when all tis members were screwing one another, aborting foetuses, indulging in hedonism…how long before another group destroyed them?
Se USA…this is why it is in decline.
This is why they need to import new blood.
From PN:
Yo, AJ!
Let’s continue probing a replicant’s mind.
Actually, a long time ago, I had a sexual relationship with my sister and my cousin. I loved them both dearly and never felt in the least that embodying this love physically was unnatural. Quite the contrary. And because we were never foolish enough to engage in actual intercourse it always left me feeling rather wonderful.
As for pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality, nope, never. Here, however, we are talking about children who are simply not mature enough to engage in sexuality. Or the matter of consent.
Still, there are those who, in a No God world, are able to rationalize it. And not just the sociopaths.
My point being that our individual beliefs and behaviors here are rooted existentially in dasein. That philosophers and ethicists are not able to provide us with a deontological assessment of human sexuality. And that those like Satyr simply fall back on their own rooted existentially in dasein assessment of nature. It’s always what they say is natural or rational or moral.
Why? Because what is crucial for these objectivists is not what they believe but that what they believe sustains for them the comfort and the consolation of believing in turn that what they believe is what all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings must believe too. The “one of us” vs. “one of them” mentality.
And, over at KT, or else.
Just take this frame of mind as far as, existentially, it suits you. All the way up to Hitler and the Jews, for example.
Presto! Don’t share his own value judgments? You’re a degenerate.
So, is he basically agreeing that incest that stops short of copulation and pregnancies is biologically, genetically reasonable and moral?
And what of those who disagree? Who insist that any sexual acts at all between family members and close relatives are naturally irrational and immoral?
Sure, if the incest that is sanctioned in a community includes intercourse and pregnancies and an explosion of babies born with birth defects, it would make sense to prohibit it. But even then there will be those who do it anyway. Fuck the community, fuck society. I’ll do what it damn well pleases me to do.
Okay, Mr. Philosopher, provide us with a deontological rebuttal to that in a No God world.
And what defintion am I looking for?
Then this part:
Exactly. You have to imagine it because when “in reality” is that ever likely to happen? What community on Earth has that ever happened in? Yes, within a community a tiny percentage of the population may engage in these behaviors. But where are the groups of people around the globe large enough to threaten the community/nation as a whole?
So, basically Karen doesn’t care about the impact on the group her choices have…choices that will break it apart or decrease its competitiveness relative to other societies…other groups.
She only thinks of herself, in the here and now.
See, these degenerate brainless ones is why the group enforces rules - moral standards. If you allow these types to do as they please, because ti feels good…the system collapses.
She proves my point.
If degenerates, like her, are permitted to do whatever they please, guided by their degeneracy and hedonism, the group, i.e., society, decays…unable to compete with other societies it dies, leaving the desperate and degenerate Karen’s out cold.
There we have it: morality is not a social construct, it requires no creator god, no social contractor to fabricate it form nothing, but is an evolved method of inhibiting behaviours that propagate unfit mutations, and subsequently behaviours that contradict the health & welfare of a social unity, a group.
God was a way of enforcing these rules on those that would not discipline themselves to any earthly authority using earthly threats/rewards. It placed the fear of god in the mind of degenerates, forcing them to self-regulate their behaviours, believing a god was always watching them; or by instilling in them this self-regulating method as conscience.
Morality is the group imposing restrictions on individual actions; promoting actions that benefit the group’s health & welfare - virtues; prohibiting actions, behaviours, that decrease the group’s health & welfare - vices. All actions that reduce a group’s fitness - its ability to survive and reproduce, or to compete with other groups - have evolved to be innately self-regulatory - developing later as rules against a moral standard, i.e., immoral. Morality is not arbitrary, nor based on men’s personal preferences. We see this clearly when adultery or incest, or paedophilia are deemed immoral due to the negative consequences they produce; such sexual behaviours would decrease group cohesion and reduce its survival and reproductive potentials. Permitting these behaviour allows them to multiply until the entire group can no longer replenish its numbers - replace its dead and aging members - nor compete, nor preserve itself against external threats; also reducing a group’s ability to meet challenges.
A-morality, viz., the release of individual’s from group restrictions - law & order, and primarily moral/ethical rules of conduct - is a quick and certain way to reduce group cohesion and degrade a group’s ability to replenish its numbers and to successfully compete with other groups.
Moral behaviour evolves among social species and species using heterosexual methods of reproduction to facilitate cooperative survival and reproduction - golden rule, rules against in-group violence, incest, sympathy, altruism, tolerance, bonding (love) etc.
Ethics are added to these innate moral behaviours so as to allow larger, more complex systems to arise - making civilization possible: additional ethical rules, e.g., Mosaic Laws, against adultery, thievery, promiscuity, slander, murder, etc., are guided by the groups ideals - their collective objectives.
Whatever individual behaviours contradict these rules are deemed immoral, and are punished, or shamed.
If Mary Land is allowed free abortions then all Marys will demand free abortions, and demographics will plummet.
A lifestyle of promiscuity and care-free decadence will spread…nobody will have families.
See America.
People will have to be imported…from what is available - what kind of race will be imported?
Can they compensate for what is being lost?
No, because populations are not interchangeable…races exist…they are part of evolution theory.
Without sub-cateogirs speciation doesn’t work…sub-categories, breeds, kinds, races prove natural selection and how speciation works.
What’s the problem, Karen asks? Other than her obvious mental deficiencies.
The problem is not my opinion, it is that the group will be unable to compete with other groups…and this will eventually kill all members, and their offspring, or they will be absorbed into groups that will not be so kind and tolerant of their hedonistic demands.
Traditional families are the foundation of civilization. Not because I say so…but because this is historically propven.
Family’s replenish a fundamental resource…human resources.
Mary can fuck her daddy, if she wishes…she may even fuck her dog, her dead son…whatever and whoever…but this will impact the society she belongs to.
She is not an island…living in her private universe.
What she does - not thinks, but does, affects others, directly or indirectly.
When empires decline degeneracy hedonism increases.
Degeneracy is the end phase of empire. It is a symptom.
It is on the rise in the American dominion, because the Empire of Lies and liars, is on its way down.
No longer a Hyperpower, it is barely a superpower, and if Wokism continues it’ll become a regional power and then…vanish, fracture and fragment like Karen…
Like the Roman Empire…it will die with a whimper, and a moan.
Karen believes these moral rules are due to some power display…or puritanism…
When ethical rules regulating human sexual behaviour are crucial to societies - from wolves to chimpanzees, and from chimpanzees to humans.
To whoever has intellectual integrity…not you Karen…
Karen uses Dasein not as Heidegger used it but as a corrupted amalgamation of Locke’s tabula rasa, and Heidegger’s ‘throwness’.
In her mind an individual is placed within exitance, within particular conditions as a blank slate, and the environment programs him…writes his thinking and behaving.
Nurture all the way.
Nature is dismissed…but only for humans. Karen’s arbitrariness require no justifications. Her declarations suffice.
For her culture absolutely determines an individuals beliefs and these beliefs can never be changed because there is no objectivity…no objective way to evaluate subjective beliefs.
Here Karen also displays her understanding of Ayn Rand - which I’ve never bothered to read. Her Objectivism replaces objectivity, and is thrown about like an accusation, an insult…like ‘Nazi’.
Objectivity is therefore evil, and all must remain divinely subjective - subjectivity is moral, objectivity immoral; all ought to - so as to develop inter-subjectivity by abandoning their programming - she does her best to undermine all trust in their personal beliefs, trust in their judgements, because judgement is her nemesis.
Judging is evil…immoral. Judging leads to “conflicting values”…and that is evil, in an “amoral sense.” Anything conflicting is bad…so Natural selection is forbidden…man is excluded, has reached the pinnacle and has stopped evolving. Man is chosen to transcend nature and become his own god, his own creator.
Natural selection ought to become social selection, where all reach a compromise, and agree what ought to be selected. Nobody is to be excluded.
Messiansim…it ought to absorb everyone…because like Marxism and Anarchy, if there’s a competing system, these systems crumble.
An individual with some Intellectual integrity has to ask themselves:
If Karen is correct, and morality is manmade…a ‘social construct,’ and we are all born as blank slates to be programmed by society, and we have no innate qualities and no ability to evaluate our socioeconomic upbringing using objective standards…then:
1- Why are animals also displaying what we associate with moral behaviours? Who or what integrated them into human social constructs? who imposed upon them manmade morals?
2- Why do certain moral ideas hold true across cultures and ages? Is there a conspiracy?
3-Why has there never been a society that practiced completely antithetical moral standards like:
Heterosexuality is immoral; bestiality is moral.
Incest is moral; all other relationships, immoral.
Necrophilia is the highest virtue; all other sexual acts are vices.
Why hasn’t a social system come about that made homosexuality and transsexuality the epitome of morality, and heterosexuality an evil immoral behaviour?
According to her, pleasure is the first principle. If it gives pleasure to someone… it is good.
Hedonism replaces morality…therefore why are not narcotics and intoxicants the highest virtue?
Some people feel pleasure by physically and mentally torturing others…can a system evolved where sadism and masochisms were the highest virtues?
Having never read Rand, I suspect that Karen understood her about as much as she understood Heidegger…or any philosopher who wrote down their intellectual ‘skyhooks, up in the clouds, concepts.’ - way over Karen’s head.
Karen cannot think…so she emotes.
Like all women, for her the ideas are secondary to their social and emotional impact on everyday people, and interpersonal relationships.
She’s the anti-philosohy failosopher… and like anarchists would not survive in a truly anarchist world, using anarchism to justify their parasitical lifestyle - she cannot survive in a world governed by her amorality.
Karen’s physical disabilities - on top of her obvious mental disabilities -make her particularly dependent on the kindness of strangers - on their moral acumen.
Given the above explanation of why morality evolved [[size=85]in bold above[/size]] Karen wants to undermine the natural roots of this behaviour so as to then rewrite the moral codes to accommodate degeneracy.
She is a woman who wants to change the world, and only has little ol’ me to accuse and rage against.
As if, in her no-free-will world - I am somehow responsible for creating morality…which brings me to the last glaring self-contradiction in Karen’s confused, feminized, psyche…
How are objectivists, or fulminating fanatics, held accountable if nobody has a choice but to be what they are?
From PN:
Yo, AJ!
I’ve really got him going now. Only he’s on a leash of late at ILP. The Satyr I’m used to making a complete fool of [or simply allowing him to make a complete fool of himself] has been warned not to go too far in huffing and puffing and in hurling ad homs and in reducing his posts down to one long declamatory personal attack.
Still, he does manage to go bumbling right to the edge, of course.
ME
HIM:
Now, I challenge anyone here to explain to us how Satyr actually responds to the points I make above.
Oh, and in between he goes up into the intellectual contraption clouds in order to embrace his own rendition of the Serious Philosopher pontificating ponderously on morality. Go over to ILP and check it out.
It’s the part in bold.
This is typical of the sort of thing we get from him all the time at KT. And the sort of thing that, in my view, we often get from you here, AJ.
Now, let’s get back to how much of this is rooted in dasein…
Nothing at all…
The effect is gradual, Karen…it deteriorates a group’s ability to compete, lowering its power…gradually and methodically leading to decline.
Like ion the US, presently.
Like cancer, Karen…the individual is not aware of it at all…and then it grows…and grows…and if you do not deal with it in time, you die.
Morality is supposed to maintain group health…regulating individual behaviours.
Transsexuality, homosexuality, paedophilia, incest, bestiality, adultery all moral and ethical laws…not because someone woke up one day and decided he didn’t like homosexuality, or wanted to stop his neighbour from buggering his buddy…but because the sexual dysfunction, degrades the group’s strength, if allowed to become normalized.
God or social shame are methods of imposing this rule on imbeciles who cannot comprehend how or why having sex with a little boy, or their pet dog, is not a private affair but affects the entire group.
Demographics.
If the group cannot compete or meet challenges it declines, and declines, until it fragments and fractures, like your psyche Karen.
Your mind/body dissonance is experienced by you are a schizophrenic fragmentation - you are looking for absolutes, for certainty, and there are none…this doesn’t mean your subjective ideas are just as good as any other. Your perspective is not proven right by disproving another’s, or by finding weaknesses in another’s, Karen.
There we have it: morality is not a social construct, it requires no creator god, no social contractor to fabricate it from nothing and nowhere, but is an evolved method of inhibiting behaviours that propagate unfit mutations, and subsequently behaviours that contradict the health & welfare of a social unity, a group.
God was a way of enforcing these rules on those that would not discipline themselves to any earthly authority using earthly threats/rewards. It placed the fear of god in the mind of degenerates, forcing them to self-regulate their behaviours, believing a god was always watching them; or by instilling in them this self-regulating method as conscience.
Morality is the group imposing restrictions on individual actions; promoting actions that benefit the group’s health & welfare - virtues; prohibiting actions, behaviours, that decrease the group’s health & welfare - vices. All actions that reduce a group’s fitness - its ability to survive and reproduce, or to compete with other groups - have evolved to be innately self-regulatory - developing later as rules against a moral standard, i.e., immoral. Morality is not arbitrary, nor based on men’s personal preferences. We see this clearly when adultery or incest, or paedophilia are deemed immoral due to the negative consequences they produce; such sexual behaviours would decrease group cohesion and reduce its survival and reproductive potentials. Permitting these behaviour allows them to multiply until the entire group can no longer replenish its numbers - replace its dead and aging members - nor compete, nor preserve itself against external threats; also reducing a group’s ability to meet challenges.
A-morality, viz., the release of individual’s from group restrictions - law & order, and primarily moral/ethical rules of conduct - is a quick and certain way to reduce group cohesion and degrade a group’s ability to replenish its numbers and to successfully compete with other groups.
Moral behaviour evolves among social species and species using heterosexual methods of reproduction to facilitate cooperative survival and reproduction - golden rule, rules against in-group violence, incest, sympathy, altruism, tolerance, bonding (love) etc.
Ethics are added to these innate moral behaviours so as to allow larger, more complex systems to arise - making civilization possible: additional ethical rules, e.g., Mosaic Laws, against adultery, thievery, promiscuity, slander, murder, etc., are guided by the groups ideals - their collective objectives.
Whatever individual behaviours contradict these rules are deemed immoral, and are punished, or shamed.
This isn’t even directed at you…you are braindead.
I use you to post my views so that others might read them - those with intellectual integrity and an IQ over 100.
It ain’t you.
You will be posting the same shit…ten years from now…or until Godot finally arrives.
You have nothing to offer, but negativity. No alternative…no more probable theory…nothing.
You are a Marxist opportunist…and a recovering Abrahamic that will never, ever recover.
From PN:
You know, it’s always puzzled me why Satyr isn’t posting here. After all, KT and ILP combined could not possibly be further removed from putting even the tiniest of dents in the world of philosophy online. You can’t even really count ILP as a philosophy forum anymore in my opinion. Just check out the posts there for a day or two.
Whereas the PN forum is derived from the Philosophy Now magazine and, comparatively, has many more actual philosophers submitting posts that are considerably more in the vicinity of actual philosophy itself.
So, I figure it’s because 1] he has attempted to post here in the past but went into his “HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!” psycho mode and got banned or 2] he is still posting here as, say, you for example.
Then whatever the fuck this means:
Sounds more like a description of a nail gun.
Okay, yeah, why don’t you?
Anyway, here’s another excerpt from Satyr on my ILP daesin thread:
Do me a favor okay? Contact him and ask him to explain what the fuck this even means in regard to an actual context.
Yes, we are “thrown” at birth out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And morally, politically, anthropologically, sociologically, etc., a baby’s mind is a blank slate and those around him will stuff themselves into it for years and years. And his or her experiences as an adult are profoundly rooted out in the particular world that he or she has been thrown into fortuitously at birth.
But, over the years, there have been any number of objectivists…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ideologies
…God and No God who have insisted that yes, Satyr is right in that there is only one optimal moral narrative and political agenda in regard to race and gender and sex and Jews and government and everything else. But it sure as shit isn’t his. It’s theirs.
Ask him to come down out of the “serious philosopher” intellectual contraption clouds and actually demonstrate empirically/phenomenologically how and why only his set of assumptions and conclusions regarding the human condition is the right one.
Given a context of his own choosing. Though, sure, help him out here so that together you can really trip me up.
Come on, as with you AJ, all I did back in the dungeon was to probe the extent to which in regard to Jews and blacks and women and homosexuals and liberals and others, his political policies if he were in power would be the same or different from the Nazis.
First of all, I’m not arguing that objective moral and political convictions don’t exist, only that “here and now” I don’t believe that they do. And, besides, there are hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths espoused around the globe. And that there is always the danger that some objectivists will go beyond “this is what I think” to “this is what you better think too”.
Or else.
Or else?
Well…
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Do him a favor here, AJ. Note all of the many times I have been this way with you here. Or ask him to note a particular context at ILP and we can explore this at a distance…here and there.
Karen thinks this works…
Nobody pays her any mind…but she cannot see it.
Oh well…
From PN:
Yo, AJ.
What do you make of this “exchange”:
ME:
Anyway, here’s another excerpt from Satyr on my ILP dasein thread:
Do me a favor okay? Contact him and ask him to explain what the fuck this even means in regard to an actual context.
Yes, we are “thrown” at birth out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And morally, politically, anthropologically, sociologically, etc., a baby’s mind is a blank slate and those around him will stuff themselves into it for years and years. And his or her experiences as an adult are profoundly rooted out in the particular world that he or she has been thrown into fortuitously at birth.
But, over the years, there have been any number of objectivists…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ideologies
…God and No God who have insisted that yes, Satyr is right in that there is only one optimal moral narrative and political agenda in regard to race and gender and sex and Jews and government and everything else. But it sure as shit isn’t his. It’s theirs.
Ask him to come down out of the “serious philosopher” intellectual contraption clouds and actually demonstrate empirically/phenomenologically how and why only his set of assumptions and conclusions regarding the human condition is the right one.
Given a context of his own choosing. Though, sure, help him out here so that together you can really trip me up.
Come on, as with you AJ, all I did back in the dungeon was to probe the extent to which in regard to Jews and blacks and women and homosexuals and liberals and others, his political policies if he were in power would be the same or different from the Nazis.
First of all, I’m not arguing that objective moral and political convictions don’t exist, only that “here and now” I don’t believe that they do. And, besides, there are hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths espoused around the globe. And that there is always the danger that some objectivists will go beyond “this is what I think” to “this is what you better think too”.
Or else.
Or else?
Well…
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Do him a favor here, AJ. Note all of the many times I have been this way with you here. Or ask him to note a particular context at ILP and we can explore this at a distance…here and there.
[/quote]
HIM:
He doesn’t have a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise. Even you put him to shame here. Or, rather, you used to.
But, come on, admit it: how pathetic is this?!!!
Oh, well…
She repeats…because she has nothing to say…this linguistic undermining is all she knows…all she understands.
She’s convinced…this is working.
She’s having an effect…
She looks for responses to validate this delusion.
I give them to her.
I’m generous.
This validation reinvigorates her - like winding up a toy.
she must have multiple venues to get her fix…
She needs to believe this is working…before she dies.
Then, her life would not have been a waste.
The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
No, Aletheia/Truth, much like Freedom or Justice, is a word that, on the one hand, you can go to the dictionary and look up, and, on the other hand, get into fierce conflicts regarding when it is used to describe reactions to particular sets of circumstances. Is it the Truth that Jean Carroll was sexually abused and defamed by Donald Trump? Well, a jury has just decided that he did. But run it by the MAGA minions and see how many concur here regarding Aletheia.
So, how might Dasein as construed by Heidegger be applicable to reactions here? As opposed to how I encompass it on this thread.
Yes, up in the intellectual clouds, where Aletheia can be broached, examined and assessed philosophically even such things as the Nazi agenda can be “appropriately” understood and rationalized. And how were the majority of Germans back than not embracing the conceived notions of Adolph Hitler? Only he was not content to leave it at his abstract idea of authenticity, was he?
So, in regard to Alethia, what are your own views with respect to race and gender and ethnicity and sexual preferences and Jews and abortion and guns and all of the many, many other “conflicting goods”? How specifically, given a particular context, are they closer to Heidegger’s Dasein in Being and Time rather than to my own assessment in my signature threads above?
Let’s explore that here.
I’m still hobbled in regard to all of these things by “fractured and fragmented” moral parameters. I suspect that in a No God world there are those all up and down the value judgment spectrum able to embrace one or another ideological/deontological political agenda. I’m not. At least “here and now”.
Are you perhaps?
Karen is discussing with texts.
From PN:
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
Again, I make all of my points above and this is all he can muster in the way of “serious philosophy”:
Go ahead, react to my points yourself.
Edit:
Let’s explore another of his posts over at ILP. A post from my Nihilism thread:
Go ahead, AJ listen to it.
To say that I parrot “postmodernism” as encompassed in the video is preposterous. Instead, in regard to science or art or social interactions or human biology etc., I make a crucial distinction between the language we use to describe objective facts in the either/or world and the language we use to express personal moral and political opinions [re dasein encompassed in my signature threads] in the is/ought world.
Given a No God world. Another assumption on my part because I have no capacity to demonstrate that a God/the God does not exist. And neither does he.
Then I ask him or you or others to note a particular set of circumstances in which to explore this distinction. As I make it. And as he or you or others make it.
Yes, I was once a moral objectivist myself…a Christian and a Marxist. And many other things. But I abandoned them when I abandoned moral objectivism itself. But I would never claim what I believe now is in fact what all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. How on Earth could I possibly go about demonstrating that? Given both “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”…as they pertain to how one would go about encompassing the “human condition” objectively going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself. We are all the equivalent of Flatlanders then.
Then utterly lacking in any context, back up into the intellectual [didactic/pedantic] clouds he goes…
We get these preposterous psycho-babble “assessments” from him all the time over at KT. Or so was the case when I used to read them. And they are all derived entirely from his “my way or the highway” assessment of genes and memes.
Okay, take any of these words and, in regard to a “situation” that precipitates conflicting goods precipitating conflicting moral narratives and political agendas, let’s compare and contrast our respective philosophies.
Him there. You and I here.
The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
You know what’s coming…
Given a particular set of circumstances in which people will argue regarding behaviors deemed either to be authentic or inauthentic – moral or immoral, rational or irrational – how, given Heidegger’s understanding of Dasein in Being and Time, would one go about making the distinction. As opposed to my own contention that philosophically there is no deontological distinction that can be made.
Any takers?
Really, how ridiculous is that? Are we or are we not indoctrinated as children to think, feel, say and do the very same things that those in our family or community or culture or historical era think, feel, say or do? As adults are we or are we not often around others who share many of our own beliefs and value judgments? To speak of being yourself and of no longer being concerned with what those around you think of that? What on Earth does that have to do with the lives most of us actually live?
Also, it assumes that to the extent that we do have different beliefs and values and do choose to behave other than as those around us, this means that we are correct, and others are not. Authentic behaviors that, subjectively, are rooted existentially in dasein as I understand it, need be as far as it goes.
Text about text.
brilliant.
After not-watching, and not-understanding Dr. Hick’s positions…his thesis which he thought out after years of study, presenting it over an hour in a speech where he explained his reasoning in detail … and what did Karen respond to all that time and effort?
Guess?
Does she not do the same with anyone who takes her seriously and wastes his/her time posting a serious reply to her insanity?
We have to ask ourselves - whether you agree or disagree with Satyr or Hicks or anyone…who, in their right mind would waste his/her time responding in a serious way to Karen?
From KTS, to ILP, and from ILP to PN.…the same Karen…
How many years has it been now?
Some advice…do not take anything Karen posts seriously. It’s a tape in her head that is stuck or replay.
Mind/Body dissonance in real time.
She mostly engages in dialogue with text…which cannot respond.
She’s mostly a joke or an example of Americanism’s collateral psychological damages.