a postmodern subject

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

From Madan Sarup’s, Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World:

[i]For [Jacques] Lacan…the unitary subject is a myth; not only is the subject split, but its very production depends on the use of language. It is the entry into language which is the precondition for becoming conscious or aware of oneself as a distinct entity. This process simultaneously founds the unconscious. As language is a social system, Lacan is able to assert that the social enters into the formation of the unconscious.[/i]

And:

[i]I believe that our identities are, to some extent, constructed by social structures. To put it briefly, structures are often constraints on the way we act. These constraints can be material, or political. Political constraints mean that, in some situations, other people have the power to determine how we act and even influence how we think.[/i]

Sometimes we approach the language of the subject and the subject of the language from the surface: what words mean. We are socialized to accumulate definitions: truth, freedom, right, wrong, good, bad, intergity, justice, male, female, black, white, gay, straight etc. So, the child born and raised in a rural village in Afghanistan will come to view the “meaning” of the world around her in a way very, very different from the child raised in a wealthy Mormom family in Salt Lake City, Utah.

But the meaning of a word is only part of the story. We are also indoctrinated to internalize more intangible emotional and psychological states when we say or use the words as well. For instance, as a child, I was raised in the belly of the male chauvinist beast. I came not only to use different words to describe “boy” and “girl” [in the 1950s], but also to inflect very different emotional and psychological agendas into my exchanges with others. Thus, emotionally and psychologically, “boys” and “girls” were just expected to be—different.

But then I enrolled in college and began recading things like Simone de Beauvoir’s, The Second Sex. That, of course, rearranged my vocabulary significantly—but it still took many more years before the language embedded inside me psychologically began to catch up with the changing world.

Language thus is more than just the world of defintions and meaning. It is engrained in us [in “I”] on levels we don’t fully understand at all. It is integrated into a whole psycho-social-political package. Also, in the sub-conscious and the unconscious mind.

It’s no wonder then that, though we use the same language, we often fail miserably to understand each other in exchanges like this. “I” am saying what I think I mean, and “you” are reading what you think I’m saying.

So the translations easily become mangled. It can, in fact, take many, many exchanges before we even begin to truly get a sense of what another is talking about. If we ever do at all.

And yet in the postmodern world, you can’t help but wonder: is the subject becoming more or less discernable? At least when we inhabited the Leave It to Beaver or the All In the Family universe we could choose sides. One side was the right way to be and the other side was not. But in this day and age—and for many—what does that even mean anymore? The subject is no longer an object at all. It is forever, existentially, a work in progress instead. And while that might mean far more options for “I”, it also means far less certainty.

2

ironically, we learn from society how to distinguish ourselves as individuals - “being yourself” or striving for authenticity are basically herd-behaviors - language plays a fundamental role in this entire process. the subject is more or less discernible (not sure if i’m using “discernable” the same way as the OP) thanks to language, but i don’t know that this is a postmodern development, i think it’s always been the case. regardless, Lacan is right that society, through language, constructs the individual qua individual in the way you describe.

iambiguous (i love your name), can you talk more about how you view the connection of these dynamics with the postmodernity?

3

The most excruciating dilemma [for some] is when they try to reconcile “be yourself” and “do the right thing”. So they come to trust words more than they come to distrust worlds. With postmodernism there is an awareness of how this all unfolds but [again, for some] not any lasting or comprehensive attempt to grapple with the cynicism.

I have always believed that being cynical is not necessarily the same thing as succumbing to it. Being cynical is, after all, just being reasonable. The gap between words and worlds reflects how precarious our existential narratives can be. And, thus, in turn, our very lives.

So, with respect to language and the trials and tribulations inherent in “I” grappling with is and ought, I became an ironist.

FYI:

From wiki:

Ironist (n. Ironism) (from Greek: eiron, eironeia) is a term coined by Richard Rorty to describe someone who fulfills three conditions:

  1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
  2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
  3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

– Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

4

Well what this might lead to though is the idea that we should establish definitions for words that are absolute and irrefutable. But if we do that we prevent change and to a good degree the introduction of new ideas both good and bad. It is a problem that there are different definitions but i don’t think it is something that needs “fixing” if one recognizes that such can be an issue then they can simply quest each other for their excepted definitions and then argue on the ideas. It may take a while sometimes but patience often beets change-that-allows-haste.

5

I agree with much of what I do not cite above. As far as this part, people today seem to have little problem choosing sides, even if the side they choose is to think that choosing sides lacks a sense of humor/irony.

As far as Leave it to Beaver - those wives - iow white middle class wives - were heavily medicated on alcohol and prescription mood changers and sleeping pills. The medical establishment responded to their systematic dissatisfaction by concluding, as it tend to, that these were mere individuals who have a problem. so the women drugged themselves and were drugged and then, well, not too long after this group became the source of feminism and walking around a house with great appliances was understood to at least not necessarily be enough for a woman. Not that the men had it much better, but they were allowed to be agents, with incredibly stiff roles to stay in. And festering behind the smiles was sexual abuse, racism, alcoholism as cultural must, the blaming of rape victims, marital rape and battery, and a sense that if the government said something, well, you went along, why would they lie? Which caused problems for the citizens of, say, the whole of Latin America.

But yes, none of this is necessarily in disagreement with your post. It probably was a relief to know the target outfit, body posture, goals, interior decorating, car, etc. To know the place to go for, regardless. Failure possible but not confusion on that issue. I am sure this is the appeal for many in the Abrahamic Religions. So many rules and so much external authority. Align myself. Align myself. The terror of freedom.

I am not sure I connect this necessarily with postmodernism. Obviously they are connected, but I think portions of the population have always been skeptical of the norm.

I also think that underneath today’s seeming diversity, capitalism/the media is devouring all uniqueness and marketing it. We are just surface. There is nothing in us that passes show, to mix in some Hamlet.

We are objects and consumers as identity in ways that were not present when I was younger. When I was a kid, generally free time did not cost my parents money. I went out with a ball or met friends at a park or their house and we came up with stuff. Setting aside any benefits or pride - I mean who cares - much of this time was not about consuption of products - arcades, shopping, texting, surfing - or skimming over things as a passive observer - but actually making stuff up out of nothing. Or really from inside us. Of course is was mostly cliched. but still, agents, creators, and subjects.

Today I see objectification as the monoculture. The eye is a chooser between products or a passive observer - media. the internal does not become external and they are being trained to primarily ignore the internal.

6

We already have lots and lots of words that are, for all practical purposes, “absolute and irrefutable”. In other words, words that are true by definition. Or words that denote things—either natural or man made. There is, after all, not likely to be a post-modern interpretation of the word “tree” or “moon” or “bachelor” or “shovel” or “spoon”.

My aim instead is always to suggest there are words that, while defined in any dictionary, mean very different things to very different people. Especially when employed interacting with others out in very different worlds.

Words like “freedom” and “worthwhile” and “evil” and “justice” and “disgusting”.

7

A lot of good points. Thanks. To the extent this particular narrative is applicable to myself and others depends of course on the particular existential trajectory of our individual lives.

But I think you are probably right that the post-modern narrative is not nearly as potent as I imagine it is. Especially here in America, my own alma mater. But then America is still one of the most religious nations on earth—at least among democracies in the modern industrial world. And the more religious you are the less prone you are to embrace [or even understand] irony.

Manifest destiny: Even after others objectify you as a child you continue to objectify yourself—as a true believer and as a consumer—until the day you die.

And then I can’t help but wonder how relevant this is in turn:

M. O’C. Drury from a symposium on Wittgenstein in Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Man and His Philosophy:

[b]Once Wittgenstein said to me of a certain writer that he was by far the greatest philosopher of the 19th century: he meant Soren Kierkegaard. Here [is a short extract] from Kierkegaard’s writings that seems to me to state this central idea [of Wittgenstein’s philosophy] in the best possible way:

'The majority of men in every generation live and die under the impression that life is simply a matter of understanding more and more and that if it were granted to them to live longer, that life would continue to be one long continuous growth in understanding.

How many of them ever experience the maturity of discovering that there comes a critical moment when everything is reversed, after which the point becomes to understand more and more that there is something which cannot be understood’.[/b]

But, for some of us, certain language—respecting our day to day interactions [and conflicts] with others—justs ends up going around and around in the same damn circles. Nothing ever gets resolved because all the understanding in the world won’t extrude “I” [wholly] from the profoundly problematic nature of narratives rooted in dasein. But, then again, we largely invented them with language in the first place.

8

Could you elaberate on that, I’m not sure I understand the definition of “objectify” within that context.

9

Hello iamambiguous…did I write that right?

— I believe that our identities are, to some extent, constructed by social structures. To put it briefly, structures are often constraints on the way we act. These constraints can be material, or political. Political constraints mean that, in some situations, other people have the power to determine how we act and even influence how we think.
O- The word “constraints”, it is perhaps a bit negative. It is not that we are something else and are then constraint to conform to an identity, but that there is no single “I”, a root I that is original; we are the complexity of identities. Kenneth Gergen refers to this as the saturated self. Our identities are a selection of competing identities, roles that we assume, masks. For the sake of taste, we try to be consistent, but it is not an identity, because if it was then we would not have to work at it but just be.
So, when we encounter the workplace, sure, we are different than when we encounter our church or our family, but we are still carrying within us the same person that we are before our family at work and the person we are at work before our family. It is just that these other roles are not needed and so are downplayed, relegated in favor of a more applicable self. We are this variety of self but wish to be one. It is we who are therefore the biggest constraint, for we wish one self that could apply to all situations and not society. The very idea of an identity, a single one, is our idea, our imposition upon the vagaries of our all-too-human selves.

— Sometimes we approach the language of the subject and the subject of the language from the surface: what words mean.
O- I think that we approach languages by how they are used. No one carries a dictionary on their back pocket and the human memory system has a short-term working storage capacity, but we can infer the usage of a sound and that is it’s meaning for us.

— But the meaning of a word is only part of the story. We are also indoctrinated to internalize more intangible emotional and psychological states when we say or use the words as well. For instance, as a child, I was raised in the belly of the male chauvinist beast. I came not only to use different words to describe “boy” and “girl” [in the 1950s], but also to inflect very different emotional and psychological agendas into my exchanges with others. Thus, emotionally and psychologically, “boys” and “girls” were just expected to be—different.
O- “A penis made us do it”…that is sadly what I hear. Has anyone ever thought that maybe we are naturally disposed to make distinctions between “boy” and “girl”? Maybe the names simply correspond to a difference that is palpable to minds adept at drawing distinctions? The names are accidental phenomenons that alert us of the fact that we see differences. And I am sick and tired of the idea that one should apologize for being able to see difference or to blame our perception of what is materially different (as simple as penis/non-penis) on something immoral.

— But then I enrolled in college and began recading things like Simone de Beauvoir’s, The Second Sex. That, of course, rearranged my vocabulary significantly—but it still took many more years before the language embedded inside me psychologically began to catch up with the changing world.
O- Beauvoir, of course, cast the sexes and described their differences in that book without shame. To decry the lack of recognition for one by the other is not the same to declare that they are the same. I wonder if reading her book uncritically does not constitute in itself a new indoctrination…

— Language thus is more than just the world of defintions and meaning. It is engrained in us [in “I”] on levels we don’t fully understand at all. It is integrated into a whole psycho-social-political package. Also, in the sub-conscious and the unconscious mind.
O- Before language exist man has to invent it. Implied is the existence of the sense of “I” before the expression of “I” in language. If the “I” is the process of language, if we are the effects of language and not it’s cause, then what caused language in the first place? Who taught the “First Woman” how to say “I”?

— It’s no wonder then that, though we use the same language, we often fail miserably to understand each other in exchanges like this. “I” am saying what I think I mean, and “you” are reading what you think I’m saying.
O- Still the fact that we share a language means that while we differ on intent and details of our meaning we must agree to the basics of a use. I may call some (actually) pink-hued shirt “red”, while you call it “fuschia”, but I doubt that the range of our individual circumstances will cause either one of us to say that the shirt is “blue” (when what is there to see is a hue of pink).

— So the translations easily become mangled. It can, in fact, take many, many exchanges before we even begin to truly get a sense of what another is talking about. If we ever do at all.
O- Maybe if we are using one word translations, but conversations, exchanges, usually consist of a face to face encounter, conversation, along the path of which two minds become one. Language is supplemented by so many things that either affirm or defy meaning. We understand a kiss, a sob, before a word is said, before a translation is offered, for none is needed, and yet discover confusion in the verbosity of Kant or the Bible. Language lives in the simplicity of coffee with a friend and is lost in dried inks over dead pages.

— And yet in the postmodern world, you can’t help but wonder: is the subject becoming more or less discernable? At least when we inhabited the Leave It to Beaver or the All In the Family universe we could choose sides. One side was the right way to be and the other side was not. But in this day and age—and for many—what does that even mean anymore? The subject is no longer an object at all. It is forever, existentially, a work in progress instead. And while that might mean far more options for “I”, it also means far less certainty.
O- One always will have sides to choose. We can deny this human quality by it’s very assertion. To deny it implies picking a side.
I think that the modern comformist uses nihilism with a bad conscience. It is faked, acted, immitated, but not lived. You might be a work in progress but from something and towards something, otherwise work itself would be impossible, because what you are now is of as much value as what you could be, so why bother? We maybe a work in progress but because it is natural for us to be, to feel ambition and disatisfaction with ourselves as we are and thus seek to progress to an object that we should be.

10

In raising children, parents seek—up to a point—to recreate themselves. In other words, in some cultures, this is more rather than less true. For example, in isolated and insular communities there tends to be a sense of reality that is governed by stringent mores.
Think, for example, of aborignal tribes in the Amazon rainforest or Amish or polygamist communities closer to home. The children here are reared to view almost everything in terms of “a proper place for everyone and everyone in his or her proper place.” The relationships revolve around “we”—around God, ethnicity or community.

“I” is objectified to the extent the child agrees to participate in this. “I” is who I ought to be: integrated wholly into “we”.

In the modern world of global capitalism, however, “I” is considerably more problematic. The subject may embrace one set of cultural mores but reject others. And this is largely rooted in contingency, chance and change—out in a particular world.

But even here there is a psychological currency exchanged such that many are still intent on choosing an identity that grounds them in a sense of certainty regarding Who I Am. They have greater options, perhaps, but, in the end, they still choose who they think they ought to be. Some call this finding their “true self”, for example.

But I see it more as a psychological rather than a moral, political or philosophical sojourn.

The role of philosophy here is to acknolwedge how “a sense of identity” will always be rooted in some respects historically, culturally and experientially. And then to ask: given how “I” is ever situated and evolving, what can we know with reasonable certainty so as to create the least dysfunctional human interactions?

11

While there are many that are directly impacted by things such as to evolve a particular view primarily associated with their current enviornment, new ideas do seem to arrise. (one might say even new ideas are built of old facts, but how is it then that we do things like come up with false ideas, if they are false that suggests that there is or was not something in the environment to suggest the existence of that thing, but rather by perhaps our misinterpretation, our imperfection, we created newness…) But my thought is like this: While most numbers are fine every now and then there is a prime.

12

Still, constraints are often what some of us strive for—fully conscious of it or not—psychologically. But how do we make a choice and then ponder to what extent the choice is “authentic”—the one I ought to have made given how I could have chosen otherwise?

When Sartre suggested that “hell is other people”, he meant [I believe] that they objectify us. They don’t see us as we are but as they are. But what I have come to conclude is that we are fully capable of objectifying ourselves as well. In other words, we want to believe that who are are and what we choose to do reflects the best of all possible worlds. Or at least the most rational and ethical.

And many can’t accept the possiblity there may not be a way in which to actually determine [or accomplish] this.

This is another aspect of identity. We think we know who we are but we recognize that who we think we are might offend or disgruntle or disturb others so, in different contexts, we put on a mask. But that is different from the person who recognizes that, up to a point, masks are all we have. Why? Becasue there is no way in which to determine objectively or absolutely who we ought to be or what we ought to do in interacting with others out in a particular world that is viewed differently by diffferent people.

My point, however, revolves around the usage of particular words—words that all the dictionaries in the world won’t allow us to define properly given a particular context viewed from conflicting value judgments.

What does it mean to live “free”, for example? Well, just by changing this from the perspective of the capitalist to the perspective the socialist—or from the perspective of the Christian to the perspective of the atheist—it creates a whole different paradigm shift in thinking. Should the emphasis be on “freedom to” or “freedom from”? Should it revolve more around competition or cooperation?

“Maybe” reflects a particular narrative. Usually [in this day and age] a political narrative. But we know two things reasonably: 1] that, biologically, boys and girls come into the world differently and 2] that, culturally, boys and girls will be rasied differently.
But how do we sort through all this in order to determine how we ought to predispose gender roles in human interaction? And what if we can’t? What if points of view about this will always be extremely complex and variable?

In other words, reading Simone de Beauvoir in the 1960s changed the way I thought about there things. But it resolved nothing.

“I” is always a manifestation of “we” in species that are social. What we should acknowledge therefore is the futility of making an objective distinction between them. That can only be a particular point of view situated out in a particular world. And ever subject to change.

Language—for all too many—is just a way to accummulate abstractions regarding what this allegedly “all means”.

That’s because the language used to describe a kiss is qualitatively different from the language used to describe whether John ought to be allowed to kiss Jim at their same-sex wedding. Kant and the Bible grapple with translating the language of is/ought into the language of either/or. The Bible uses God and Kant uses Reason [qua God] as the rosetta stone of choice. But what if there is no transcendental font to reconcile language [and behavior] that comes into conflict?

Some people choose because they seek out the option to choose. Others choose because they stumble upon the necessity to. Some choose convinced there is a right choice. Others choose convinced there is only the lesser of two evils. Still others choose convinced that, ultimately, any choice is interchangable with any other choice.

Thus, not only our choices but our understanding of what choosing entails can be seen equally as an embodiment of dasein.

13

If a new idea is broached by someone pertaining to a particular aspect of human interaction, some will become apprised of it and some will not. And, depending on whether or not you are one of those who do in fact become aware of it, it will impact on how you view whatever the idea pertains to.

But what becomes crucial is the extent to which the idea either is or is not demonstrably true. Or even whether or not it can be so demonstrated. Or which parts of it can be and which parts cannot.

And that is all centered around the pertinent facts in the new ideas and those individuals who become familiar with them.

14

While I believe I agree with what you said. It didn’t make sense at first because I was looking for how it related to what I said at first, and i still don’t see the connection, and i am interested in if you agree. But I went back to what post of yours I replied to and i couldn’t even see how what i said directly applied to what you said then so…IDK

15

Hello iambiguous,

— When Sartre suggested that “hell is other people”, he meant [I believe] that they objectify us. They don’t see us as we are but as they are. But what I have come to conclude is that we are fully capable of objectifying ourselves as well. In other words, we want to believe that who are are and what we choose to do reflects the best of all possible worlds. Or at least the most rational and ethical.
O- I think that the exchange between Garcin and Inez reflects something more biblical. He is the realm of “the accuser”, of Satan. Hell is other people because other people judge us, define us, challenge us, and accusses us, denying what we feel we are and thereby shattering our comfort in the belief that our regard for our ourselves, our self estimation, is accurate. The wake us up from the comfort of the dream we live by and it is then that you know that you are in Hell. Satan is a person- Satan, like God, is fashioned after a type of person, an exageration of a part of our humanity. Just as some have said that if there was no God it would be necessary to create Him, so it seems that if there is no Satan in Hell, no torture, that even here we like to exagerate and elevate the part of people to the entirety of people.

— This is another aspect of identity. We think we know who we are but we recognize that who we think we are might offend or disgruntle or disturb others so, in different contexts, we put on a mask. But that is different from the person who recognizes that, up to a point, masks are all we have. Why? Becasue there is no way in which to determine objectively or absolutely who we ought to be or what we ought to do in interacting with others out in a particular world that is viewed differently by diffferent people.
O- But the point is not the finding of that root self but the striving in itself. It doesn’t matter that we can be intellectually convinced that our self is historical, evolving, fluent, because the beast in us perceives permanence. Suppose that it is just a game of mask…how could we have found this out? The belief in mask is dependent on a belief in the face behind it. It is my fault, I know. Let me put it in this way- We are born without a face. But we feel disfigured and believe that we should have one face. There is no reason as to why one mask should become primary, but there is the ambition of wholeness, of permanence. Man believes that this is beautiful…it might be only in his eyes, but he feels beauty in a single way, in a critical way, establishing boundaries and shaping the mask that becomes “his”. The material of this psychological mask is malleable because of the very imperfections of our humanity. We are inconsistent, fickle, with the very ideals we trace for ourselves. Bombarded by competing emotions and alternatives, these find their way into what we feel is pure. Thus our atheists are palpably religious.

— What does it mean to live “free”, for example? Well, just by changing this from the perspective of the capitalist to the perspective the socialist—or from the perspective of the Christian to the perspective of the atheist—it creates a whole different paradigm shift in thinking. Should the emphasis be on “freedom to” or “freedom from”? Should it revolve more around competition or cooperation?
O- Then let me call you upon it: What is essential difference between freedom from and freedom to? Are they not on a single slide? To have the freedom (one could say) to enjoy my life requires that I possess freedom from what may inhibit me. I’ll know that I am free from racism (one could say) when I am free to marry someone from a different race…

— “Maybe” reflects a particular narrative. Usually [in this day and age] a political narrative. But we know two things reasonably: 1] that, biologically, boys and girls come into the world differently and 2] that, culturally, boys and girls will be rasied differently.
But how do we sort through all this in order to determine how we ought to predispose gender roles in human interaction? And what if we can’t? What if points of view about this will always be extremely complex and variable?
O- “In order to determine”? Who died and made us God? Who are we to determine beyond ourselves? All we can do is to be equal before the law, but let’s not think that we will become different before ourselves. We can determine our laws, but we cannot determine the human heart.

— “I” is always a manifestation of “we” in species that are social. What we should acknowledge therefore is the futility of making an objective distinction between them. That can only be a particular point of view situated out in a particular world. And ever subject to change.
O- Subject to change, yes, but that simply follows the prejudice. We have the ability to love everybody…as long as there are enough people left to hate. We have seen in history “permanent” distinctions based on race, based on social class, religion, sex…Losing one just invites another. Isn’t it time to reflect that humans have a thymonic side, that we do strive for power, for undue recognition, to rise above the mere distinction shared by the many to appropiate distinctions reserved for the few? Sure, we are social but also selective on how is my neighbor, who is part of “us”.

— That’s because the language used to describe a kiss is qualitatively different from the language used to describe whether John ought to be allowed to kiss Jim at their same-sex wedding. Kant and the Bible grapple with translating the language of is/ought into the language of either/or. The Bible uses God and Kant uses Reason [qua God] as the rosetta stone of choice. But what if there is no transcendental font to reconcile language [and behavior] that comes into conflict?
O- The narrative behind John and Jim is qualitatively equal to the narrative of the kiss as Jane and Dick’s wedding. Why did they kiss? Sure, the narrative of the legal right of John and Jim cannot be used to describe their kiss, but neither can it be used for Jane and Dick, and yet the discourse, the dialectic for both couples will be similar. Jane is black, while Dick is white, or maybe one is Catholic the other a Jew.

— Still others choose convinced that, ultimately, any choice is interchangable with any other choice.
O- Are they really making a choice? Isn’t it a contradiction? If you still feel any other course of action as valid as the one you are taking then you are acting irrationally, unreasonably. If you have no reason why, then you have made no choice. If every available choice is valid then none is valid, and none is a choice.

16

Could someone please explain briefly to me, what is meant by subject and object?? Is the subject just the thing that is made up of objective perceptions?

Thanks for your help. I’d love to be part of this discussion.

17

I’m not quite clear what you are asking me.

Here is your first post:

And I noted a word like “tree”. In the English language, “tree” is understood to denote a particular thing reasonably defined such that we are not likely to engage in conflicts over the meaning of the word. In other words, however postmodern the world becomes, a tree is a tree is a tree.

But if the discussion shifts from trees to whether or not a law ought to be passed allowing logging companies to cut down particular trees, the language paradigm shifts. And it shifts from the object [tree] to the subject [“I”]. And it shifts from what is perceived and understood to be to what ought to be instead.

And the subject—“I”—is always situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way. And that can come into conflict with the understanding of other subjects.

And here [to me] subject = “I” = dasein. And philosophy is unable to resolve the conflicts embedded in value judgments.

18

I think that may be the case in so far as one might use philosophy in itself. but I think that gnereraly no one thing aan entirely rely on itself to relate a thing…generally multimple understandings across multiple subjects are required to really get anywhere. But I some what doubt this with regards to philosophy as it almost seems to be the study of value judgments, to a degree.

19

But they judge, define and accuse first and foremost because they believe they can judge, define and accuse. And they believe they can because, objectively, they believe there is a way for this to be done.

Their way, for example.

But what if there isn’t? What if they confuse what they think they know is true [subjectively as dasein] with what could in fact be known as true [objectively] if one possessed an omniscient point of view?

And no mortal man or woman does.

Once this is acknowledged, however, we can then get down to the business of making reasonable distinctions between objective truths [the stuff of math and science*] and subjective speculations [the stuff of value judgments] rooted intersubjectively in daseins situated out in particular worlds understood in particular ways.

*sans Hume’s conjectures regarding cause and effect

To me, Hell was invented as a psychological incentive to believe in God—or else. There has to be a punishment, right? Do the right thing or burn for eternity.

The point is in acknowledging there is no Self—no core or true Self—to find. At least that’s my point. When you peel back an onion all you have are the layers. And when you peel back “I” all you have are the existential variables. And they are situated out in a world far, far more complex [and convoluted] than the world of onions. “I” is the persuasive illusion there is a point of view expressing and encompassing essentially what can only be understand existentially instead.

But this “mask” is hardly just something that is “made up”. Instead, it is ever a profoundly problematic work in progress. It starts with indoctrination by others as a child from birth and continues to the grave as you ceaselessly come into contact with new existential variables that can change [sometimes dramatically] how you view yourself and the world around you.

And you really only have so much control over this in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

The differences here are rooted in daseins interacting out in the world historically and culturally. For example, how was “personal freedom” understood in Feudal Europe? And how did that all change dramatically when mercantalism and a burgeoning world trade exploded into full blown capitalism? Capitalists focus the beam on the individual freedom to buy and sell in the marketplace. Socialists focus the beam on a common community of men and women freed from poverty and hunger and exploitation and alienation.

Or take the issue of gun control. Some insist they should be free to arm themselves as they see fit. Others insist that, on the contrary, they should be freed from living in a world where guns are everywhere.

Freedom is never either/or. It is always situated instead out in a world of ever conflicting interpretations of what is said “to be” and what is said “ought to be” in its place.

Who we are depends on who we think we are. And who I think we are is dasein. And my “heart”—how I “feel” about things—is no less dasein than my brain—how I “think” about things.

Now, some think we are made in the image of God. But others render this God [and all the others] dead and insist—morally and politically—we are ourselves the measure of all things. Both the “good” and “bad”.

The rest is history.

I can agree with this or disagree with this. In whole or in parts. But one thing I cannot do is insist that my own rendering of it will ever be more than an existential narrative rooted in dasein. Anymore than your own is.

Not out in the real world it is not. Out there, the opposing narratives are always situated instead. Politically more often than not. Soon, in New York, John and Jim or Jane and Joan will be permitted legally to kiss at their own weddings. But that does not resolve the moral conflict. The moral conflict can never be more than an exchange of existential narratives.

And for some, this does not change when the dividing line is race or religion or ethnicity or age. We can pass laws allowing certain people to marry…and forbidding others the same. And then objectivity kicks in. Two people either can or cannot marry under the law. But no philosopher can come up with a moral argument proving objectively that any two people either ought or ought not be allowed to marry.

Suppose, for example, a brother and a sister want to get married. He had a vasectomy so there is no question of genetically deformed offspring. Should this be permitted? In my opinion, we can’t detemine this ethically—or logically, rationally, epistemologically. It will always be only a matter of opinion.

No, I am merely making a particular choice ambiguously. I am saying the choice I made seems the most reasonable to me here and now; but I recongnize it might not tomorrow or next month or next year. Why? Because, through the course of living my life, I encountered a new experience, relationship or point of view that changed my mind.

But I recongnize that, emotionally and psychologically, this narrative bothers a lot of people. They want to believe that with respect to certain things they can objectively differentiate right from wrong and good from bad.

20

Hello ambiguous:

— But they judge, define and accuse first and foremost because they believe they can judge, define and accuse. And they believe they can because, objectively, they believe there is a way for this to be done.
O- It is not that they believe the can but cannot. Who the hell draws up the qualifications and who awaits to examine herself by them to see if she is qualified? No. We are humans and therefore, by that quality alone, we judge. Sartre said that we are condemned to be free, not that we believe to be free. It is not that they believe there is a way but that their nature is this way.

— Their way, for example.
O- It is always their way, which again the principle behind Sartre’s assertion. There is no Objective. Everything is mediated by us.

— But what if there isn’t? What if they confuse what they think they know is true [subjectively as dasein] with what could in fact be known as true [objectively] if one possessed an omniscient point of view?
O- The sky looks blue to me. It does not mean that the sky is necessarily this color, in fact it isn’t, but that is what it looks to me. Am I in any error if I say that the sky is blue? No, because I am reporting what it is to me. Hell would not be being in a room with people that don’t know us at all doubting who we feel we are. It is Hell because they speak of what is but which we wish it wasn’t. If they were confused then what is that to us? We may feel pity for them, or contempt. Inez has Garcin’s number; she is his hell because, in the eyes of Garcin, she speaks truth. So, it is not what the accusser feels we are, but how we agree with her.

— Once this is acknowledged, however, we can then get down to the business of making reasonable distinctions between objective truths [the stuff of math and science*] and subjective speculations [the stuff of value judgments] rooted intersubjectively in daseins situated out in particular worlds understood in particular ways.
O- Objective truths are not quarantined to the realm of analytic propositions. Only philosophies can manage the separation. We live by myths. The very participants are speculations. Without the myth, then there is no one to say and no one to listen to the “reasonable” proposition that we should make distinctions- the distinctions are already en force.

— To me, Hell was invented as a psychological incentive to believe in God—or else. There has to be a punishment, right? Do the right thing or burn for eternity.
O- I don’t know. But the point that was good enough to be explored is that the idea of Hell is an effect rooted in our psychological make-up.

— The point is in acknowledging there is no Self—no core or true Self—to find. At least that’s my point. When you peel back an onion all you have are the layers. And when you peel back “I” all you have are the existential variables. And they are situated out in a world far, far more complex [and convoluted] than the world of onions. “I” is the persuasive illusion there is a point of view expressing and encompassing essentially what can only be understand existentially instead.
O- An onion has layers, no doubt, but as a condition of it’s being an onion. the Self has it’s layers, memories that form it’s boundaries, moments that scar and layer the Self, but this is what composes the Self and not what deny it’s existence or reveal the illusion of the Self. The Self is no illusion unless you fail to recognize your own reflection in a mirror. If you define the Self as a homunculus, as a Soul that is transhistorical, then, thus defined, the THAT definition self is an illusion, but that does not mean that there is not a phenomenal experience of a self which requires an interpretation. Such definitions of the self only affirm how real it is to us.

— But this “mask” is hardly just something that is “made up”. Instead, it is ever a profoundly problematic work in progress. It starts with indoctrination by others as a child from birth and continues to the grave as you ceaselessly come into contact with new existential variables that can change [sometimes dramatically] how you view yourself and the world around you.
And you really only have so much control over this in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
O- I don’t believe in a blank slate, or that others “write” on a passive self. It seems that we are indoctrinated, but the success of an indoctrination rests on the willingness of the subject. To hypnotize someone requires a willing partner willing to be hypnotized. It is profound to read about Jesus saying that it is their faith that had saved them and cured them.

— The differences here are rooted in daseins interacting out in the world historically and culturally. For example, how was “personal freedom” understood in Feudal Europe? And how did that all change dramatically when mercantalism and a burgeoning world trade exploded into full blown capitalism?
O- Just note here that perhaps you are inviting an illusion. How can you pretend to know what a differend age, the daesins of a different age, understood X or Y? Only the dead know this, if at all (for you think that the self is an illusion).

— Capitalists focus the beam on the individual freedom to buy and sell in the marketplace. Socialists focus the beam on a common community of men and women freed from poverty and hunger and exploitation and alienation.
O- Freedom based on the most thorough slavery that history ever knew. A forced community that deny all daesins under the rubric of “The People”.

— Or take the issue of gun control. Some insist they should be free to arm themselves as they see fit. Others insist that, on the contrary, they should be freed from living in a world where guns are everywhere.
O- Yet each one uses “free” consistently. What you have a difference is in what is liberated, freed.

— Freedom is never either/or.
O- Then you are spiritualizing “Freedom”, adding a new dimension not intended by either party in how they have use “free”. Freedom is always black and white, an either/or. That is why it has it’s antonyms, it’s opposites.

— Who we are depends on who we think we are. And who I think we are is dasein. And my “heart”—how I “feel” about things—is no less dasein than my brain—how I “think” about things.
O- How we think depends on what we are as well. The human heart is not infinitely malleable. Like a river it cuts into the banks while flowing along the limits of those banks. But the deeper it cuts, in time, it has less strenght to drastically change the course it must take

— I can agree with this or disagree with this. In whole or in parts. But one thing I cannot do is insist that my own rendering of it will ever be more than an existential narrative rooted in dasein. Anymore than your own is.
O- And this is the beginning of Nietzsche’s nihilism.

— And for some, this does not change when the dividing line is race or religion or ethnicity or age. We can pass laws allowing certain people to marry…and forbidding others the same. And then objectivity kicks in. Two people either can or cannot marry under the law. But no philosopher can come up with a moral argument proving objectively that any two people either ought or ought not be allowed to marry.
Suppose, for example, a brother and a sister want to get married. He had a vasectomy so there is no question of genetically deformed offspring. Should this be permitted? In my opinion, we can’t detemine this ethically—or logically, rationally, epistemologically. It will always be only a matter of opinion.
O- Reason is in part the product of our taste. But our tastes can change and become, over time, domesticated. In the past gays on TV would have caused the cancellation of a show. Today you have shows thriving with gay cast members. The reason why conservatives are so involved with what is shown on TV is because TV are turned on and watched significant amounts of time. And it is designed, and has indoctrinative effects. Through it people become desensitized to violence, but also to sexual taboos. The agendas of several groups, political or social, compete in the media outlet.
I find little in common between incest and homosexuality. The predation usually occurs most often where there is no blood relation. So you find siblings falling in love when they are brothers and sisters by the marriage decree of their different parents. Siblings that share the same parents may also have incestuous relationships, but less often than siblings sharing no blood ties. I think that biologically there is some component in our psychology that recognizes itself in it’s kin, and thus changes it’s interaction with them from how it interacts with everyone else. family is not merely a construct.
Children of different parents could fall in love, same with two me of different parents. I am not negating that exceptionally sometimes two siblings may fall in love, but that this is the exception and not the rule. Should they be allowed to marry? I don’t know, but my point is that they would seek the right to marry for reasons (narratives) common to us all. Whether they win or lose will depend on how convincingly they can homogenized their narrative to the predominant narrative. This is objectively what the Law is, what it comprises.

— No, I am merely making a particular choice ambiguously. I am saying the choice I made seems the most reasonable to me here and now; but I recongnize it might not tomorrow or next month or next year. Why? Because, through the course of living my life, I encountered a new experience, relationship or point of view that changed my mind.
O- If it was the “most reasonable to me here and now”, then it was unambiguously that you made that choice. It is a judgment; it was the “most” from all other alternatives and so THIS alternative is NOT EQUAL TO all others. Sure, in time, through the acquisition of new experiences, new information, you might find that your previous choice is no longer the “most” reasonable, and that, based on what you know now, some other choice would be “most” reasonable. At no time have you acted ambiguously.

— But I recongnize that, emotionally and psychologically, this narrative bothers a lot of people. They want to believe that with respect to certain things they can objectively differentiate right from wrong and good from bad.
O- “Objectively” is always “to me”. All perspectives are not treated equal. Ours has always a vantage view. Even to doubt this or to negate our own primacy, is a product of “to me”.