Define dasein.
Define nihilism.
you are no philosopher, cunt.
you are some failed loser Marxist.was given a new way to create her Utopian naive idealism.
All you know is to negate…undermine…subvert…destroy.
…just name the date, and I’ll be there. 
I would swim an ocean for you… just to get to hear you say “dasein”, in my ear. 
Lol 
8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
How complex and convoluted can this become?
To find out, follow the exchange between myself and gib here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767
Just skip the Kids and the riffraff.
Now, for those here who do not possess a near robotic emotional response to good and evil, you will no doubt agree that genetically, biologically, we all come into this world hardwired to feel emotions. But look around you. Over and again, in regard to morality and the behaviors we choose, what some feel good about others feel bad about instead. Just pick an issue.
And, beyond all doubt, that begins when we are children. A time when others indoctrinate us to love and to hate what they love and hate. And this “inculcating” is particularly effective because it is often motivated by love. Parents and family members and relatives and many in the community, caring deeply about you, prepare you to understand the world as it must be understood if you are to become “one of us” and not “one of them”.
We are taught to think and to feel only the right things.
On the other hand, since this clearly changes historically, culturally and in terms of our own personal experiences, it was necessary for philosophy to be invented. That way ethics could be invented in turn and all truly rational and virtuous men and women could learn to subsume all of that subjective, “existential” stuff into one or another truly deontological assessment of good and bad.
And, by and large, in any given community, we can expect it all to unfold as follows:
Only that was before.
Before being the time when communities were small and there was always a proper place for everyone and everyone was always in their proper place. In the modern world, however, that all changed. With such technologies as television and the internet and smart phones, it is now possible for any particular one of us to be bombarded with zillions of different [often conflicting] ways to think about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.
Then [of course] the part that I focus in on: dasein.
Still don’t know how Mary Land defines Dasein.
Can Language Affect Morality?
BY STEPH KOYFMAN at +Babbel magazine
Here he is writing about morality using language and then asking whether language can affect morality.
What am I missing here? How could any discussion of morality bursting at the seams with language – words – not impart consequences?
Words like these: “How ought one to behave morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
Given a particular context.
A context is chosen, the arguments are made. And depending on how successful we are at conveying our points, after the discussion we might actually prompt some to change their behaviors.
Indeed, the whole debate about subjective/objective morality itself…try to imagine it unfolding if no language at all was used.
So, of course language can affect morality. The real question is how successful we are at connecting the dots between words and worlds.
With religious language, however, the point is less regarding the words used to champion “commandments” here and now and more regarding the words used to champion “immortality” and “salvation” there and then. Words used to describe Heaven and Hell too. Morality before and after you die.
And then the part where, over time, historically, the language of morality can also shift dramatically. And then the part where each of us as individuals can encounter personal experiences so different that “good” and “bad” revolve around ever more problematic exchanges of language.
Thus, for philosophers, the invention of deontology. The belief that, say, ethicists, if they think, really, really hard enough, they might become the next Immanuel Kant.
I don’t know what Mary means by morality.
I know what I mean…but not her…
She never defines any of the words she negates.
What is a-morality?
What is being nullified?
How could one negate what one does not identify and clarify?
8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
Religion is a whole other ballgame in regard to morality. And that is because with religion the dots are necessarily connected between what we choose to do on this side of the grave and the fate of our very soul itself on the other side of it. And, come on, what are the mere decades we spend from the cradle to the grave compared to the millions and billions and trillions of years that our souls will luxuriate in should we pass muster on Judgment Day.
Though, sure, it’s not easy for us to imagine what a “soul” actually entails over eternity. In fact, I suspect that many of the religious among us anticipate “somehow” getting our bodies back again and interacting with all of our loved ones doing righteous things in the presence of God Himself.
Whereas for the No God folks, morality revolves mainly around being rewarded rather than punished for the behaviors we choose. Though, clearly, historically, sometimes morality is intertwined in one or another ideology – from Rand to Marx – and we can feel comforted in the fact that even though oblivion awaits us there and then, at least here and now on this side of the grave we can take comfort in knowing that we are “at one” with the Good Guys.
More – far more – to the point, these moral norms are anchored to both sides of the grave. You can embrace one or another secular, political, ideological “ism” and be comforted and consoled all the way to the grave. But then what? With religion you are never not comforted and consoled.
Religious norms, moral norms. What’s the difference on Judgment Day?
8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
That’s true. But once you leave God out of it, what on earth are we to make of spiritual or magical morality? And here I always come back eventually to why I imagine that many will in fact embrace a No God morality. In short: it can mean practically anything. So, therefore, practically anything you believe about it is sufficient to make it true. After all, few experience a magical or a spiritual sense of reality/morality such that they invent an actual Scripture for others to follow in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Each individual is able to claim their own spiritual or magical sense of reality. And, thus, since you are not them, what can you possibly really know about it?
What?! Assessments of this sort just go completely over my head. In and around one or another New Age nostrum from my frame of mind. Does anyone here have specific examples of this? Things in your life that “you might think are true” but are “inaccessible by ordinary experience”? What on earth does that even mean?
2 + 2 = 4…beyond the realm of experience?!
Okay, if this is not God, what is it? Is it in the general vicinity of pantheism? That somehow we can be at one with the universe spiritually and “just know” that stealing is wrong transcendentally or supernaturally?
Admittedly, I have never been able to grasp what that might mean. God, sure. An actual entity that created existence itself. The Creator. Someone “out there” or “up there” able to judge us when we do steal something. Say, bread to feed our starving family?
Bur something other than God?
Enlighten me.
8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
In other words, common sense.
Choose God, choose philosophy, choose science, choose experience, choose reason, choose tradition, choose culture, choose race, choose ethnicity, choose gender, choose Fox News or MSNBC.
Or – gasp! – choose two or more of them.
Yeah, that works for me.
Only I’ll still need a context.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Back to that again. When, as we all know, lots and lots and lots of things matter to each and every one of us. Only suppose we assume that there is No God. And suppose we assume further that in a No God world, we die and tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. An eternity of “nothingness at all” for each of us one by one. That is the part, some argue, where our individual lives become essentially meaningless. And that is the reason so many go to religion…to God…to make that part go away. At least in their heads.
Yeah, that works for me. No God, no transcending font/foundation that brings/links us all together teleologically. We make up our own meaning existentially. And our purpose for living can be practically anything…sex, love, careers, sports, fashion, entertainment, the arts, politics.
On the other hand, if it can in fact be almost anything then, in a No God world, what is to be done when, in the pursuit of our own particular goals, we come into conflict with others pursing their own particular goals? In other words, the stuff that those big bold newspaper headlines are often created from.
True. But, come on, the meaning and purpose of life for the atheist, in not revolving around Commandments, can only be derived historically and culturally from an enormously complex intertwining of genes and memes. Out in a particular world understood by mere mortals in particular ways. And while some invent philosophical and ideological fonts, or narratives pertaining to assumptions about Nature, it’s never quite the same as God, is it? And, besides, it only covers this side of the grave.
Over and again, I come back to this. If from day to day you basically abandon the rigors and the restrictions of “what would Jesus – or His equivalent – do?”, then you can pursue so many more possibilities. You can focus more on, say, “can I get away with it?”
On the other hand, isn’t that what the sociopaths ask themselves?
[Sorry… playing catch-up on a few posts…]
__
…because I am brown and should address that from a place of incensed rage? Expectation not met, isn’t meant to be met -I am not Sartre nor have I ever had to face issues like he had or to have to deal with them… the difference between Satyr and I, is that we both distinguish race, gender, characteristics etc., but he is judgemental on those traits, and I am not.
Just because others here take umbrage with him, doesn’t mean that I have to… da f people think I am.
Neither… 
Hope that clears things up for you? 
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Anyone here believe that there are not good reasons to believe this? Those sophisticated enough to accept that intelligent reasons can be given, but that they have found reasons of their own to reject it?
Let’s hear your reasons please. In particular, those who don’t fall back on either God or religion as a foundation to sanctify their moral narrative.
Yes, I agree. Existential meaning is everywhere. And it can revolve around many things: relationships, education, employment, political commitments, social interaction, sports, the arts.
“Total nihilism”? What on earth is that? Is it the belief that meaning is entirely absent from our lives if we don’t have a God or an ideology or some other essential font to anchor an intrinsic Self – soul – to?
And, yes, moral nihilism can provoke a pernicious – ghastly, deadly – frame of mind. Think of all the terrible pain and suffering brought about as a result of those who become narcissists or sociopaths. Some in embracing nihilism philosophically, others through the accumulated circumstances in their lives.
On the other hand, moral nihilism can persuade others to embrace “moderation, negotiation and compromise” as the best of all possible worlds…in the absence of objective morality.
And it’s not just a coincidence that, given the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the accumulation of nuclear bombs able literally to destroy the world, it has been all the more a frame of mind that cannot simply be dismissed as inherently unreasonable.
Though, sure, the reality of a world that, more and more is able to be explained through science rather than through God and religion, is going to be an important factor.
On the other hand, what can science provide us in the way of objective morality, immortality and salvation? So, don’t expect God and religion to go away anytime soon.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Accepted by who?
After all, is science able to provide us with a font from which to derive moral Commandments? Is science able to provide us with the crucial source of comfort that when we die immortality and salvation awaits us?
Now that always gets tricky. To speak of the universe as being in possession of a “self”. Isn’t that basically what the pantheists embrace? As though the universe itself were Divine. As though it really does have a plan for us. As though nature “up there”, “out there”, “in our head” encompassed a teleological component. It’s all about something and we are “as one with it”…“somehow”.
But then the part where, as with God, if morality – the human condition – is attributed to the universe then the universe also has some explaining to do about this:
…an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events…making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages…
Any pantheists among us care to take a crack at it?
Of course it’s important. When have human beings ever interacted without “conflicting goods”? Either in terms of how to secure our needs [capitalism or socialism] or in how to sustain our wants [mine or yours].
I am “fractured and fragmented” here myself. For better or for worse. And all I can do is to come to places like this and hear out those who assure me that not only is there no need to be drawn and quartered when confronting the moral conflagrations of our day and age, but there already exists the One True Path to objective morality without God.
Their own!
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Not this moral nihilist. And, more to the point, it’s not the “concept” of moral nihilism that is of interest to me. It is taking whatever one concludes the concept to be down here among us mere mortals in what is presumed to be a No God world. Moral nihilism pertaining to social, political and economic interactions. The part “where the rubber meets the road”. The part where dasein comes into play.
Again, some moral nihilists. Certain sociopaths, for example. Those who reject both morality and social conventions. And those who recognize that what we call morality is just the “for all practical purposes” need for any community to establish “rules of behavior” given that conflicting goods – conflicting wants and needs – are always going to be a part of the “human all too human condition”.
Here though the problematic element revolves around just how tricky a belief can be. Yes, some are particularly cynical and manipulate people into believing in morality [God or No God] merely in order to sustain their own selfish interests. “Morality is the opiate of the people” might be their motto. In other words, when morality as a concept becomes the actual law of the land. When moral nihilists gain actual political power and run the government.
But other moral nihilists…those not “fractured and fragmented” as I am…are able to convince themselves that through “democracy and the rule of law”/“moderation, negotiation and compromise” we can sustain something that is at least in the vicinity of “the best of all possible worlds”. No objective moral absolutes perhaps but laws thought to be clearly more ethical than others.
Anyone here believe this? Okay, let’s agree on a context and explore it it further.
self=other
seems like a cold, hard, mathematized fact until you break yourself to live it and the joy breaks you a new heart
Nietzsche & Values
Alexander V. Razin
Again, this as though there is only one APA approved official definition of nihilism. The one true account of what it means for all rational men and women. As though one could take nihilism out of their pocket like a wallet and say, “look, everyone, nihilism”.
Instead, the closest Nietzsche came to being a “great moralist”, in my opinion, is the extent to which he embraced the Uberman mentality as something that transcends historical and cultural contexts altogether and truly does reflect the most reasonable and virtuous manner in which to live as a “master” rather than a “slave”.
But even here, how far did he himself go in living his own life so as to embody the Uberman much beyond an intellectual contraption in his books? In his head. And for others who sought to do so, you have interpretations that ranged from Rand’s Objectivists to Hitler’s Nazis.
The bottom line [mine] is that you can re-evaluate values until you are blue in the face “in theory”, but in the absence of God, once you bring your theoretical conclusions down out of the philosophical clouds, you are immediately confronted with the “real world”. And that has been chewing up and spitting out our “my way or the highway” dogmatic authoritarians now for centuries.
Thus…
A “philosophy of life” predicated on a “critical analysis” of…of what exactly? That’s the part where I introduce dasein and suggest we take the masters and the slaves down out of the conjectural clouds and plug them into actual “situations”. In other words, what does it mean to be a master and a slave such that the proper distinction is made between “might makes right” and “right makes might”? You’re on top given a particular set of circumstances not because you possess the raw power to be, but because you actually deserve to be.
We’ll need a context of course.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
This comes closest to upending my own “fractured and fragmented” frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask “can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?”
And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own “me, myself and I” self-gratification.
And what is the No God philosophical – scientific? – argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn’t it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font – God – to back it all up?
For all I know, had my own life been different…for any number of reasons…I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.
After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.
Far enough? Well, for some that means bringing morality around to God. For others around what they construe to be “nature’s way”. The Know Thyself mentality of those like Satyr. For still others it is one or another “ism” in the Humanist catalogue. Or one or another political ideology.
Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let’s explore that in a No God world.
What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.
How would you reason with them?
That thing you feed your hunger… how’s that working out for you? Are you satisfied? You can quit anytime, right? Do you think there could be a bigger Yes that satisfies your hunger and also sets you free, even though it means deprioritizing everything else that never fully satisfies? Why do you think we have this hunger that is never satisfied by the temporary?
Those are the questions.
Uh, anyone else?
