iambiguous,
I’m trying to suss out your main point and it seems to be that morality is not written into the universe, while your lead into this was a whole other topic about human experience and perception. Am I missing something?
I assumed it was a play on objective/subjective distinctions. The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘objective’ assumes a subject, an observer. Otherwise, nothing would be an object, let alone ‘objective’.
In other words, ‘objectivity’ is a convenient notion, but best left as an approximation.
Some will see this as the subjunctive language of lyricism.
Technology, on the other hand, flows from the laws of physics. Thus the technology used to construct a dam is more or less rational. The key point being this rationality can be clearly measured. Either the dam holds back the water or it does not.
But some dams will do it more efficiently and more cost effectively than others. And some dams will stand the test of time better than others. So there is always room for improvement in the science that creates the technology that creates the dam. But, again, this can be demonstrated empirically such that any disagreements will in no way approach those regarding the morality of the dam’s construction.
Gender norms reflect just how complex “rules of behavior” can become. And that is because some aspects of this age-old conflict are rooted genetically in human biology and other aspects in cultural and historical prejudices. And new technologies like the pill can have a profound impact on gender norms.
But the pill is always either/or with respect to pregnancy. Either a particular pill ingested by a particular woman prevents it or it does not. But if it does not, what knowledge would we need to be certain that aborting the unwanted fetus is either rational/ethical or irrational/unethical?
Yes, that the mystery goes much deeper than that. If mind is matter then how can morality not be but another manifestation of matter that, as far back as the big bang, interacts in accordance with the laws of physics?
We don’t have an answer to that. Not a definitive one. The mystery of mind revolves around the mystery of autonomy. We perceive and we conceive and then we act accordingly. Or we act according to how others have taught us to perceive and conceive.
But if mind is just matter what does this really mean?
In considering the ding in “ding an sich” we have to start with existence itself. Is it order more than chaos? And where does the evolution of matter into the self-conscious mind of man fit into all of it?
We don’t know. But in our interactions with others what can we know such that it is not just our point of view? For all practical purposes, what knowledge transcends dasein?
What are you trying to get at, here? Can you give us an argument for anything here? That mind exists or not, what it is if it does, and why we should regard it as matter? Anything?
Obviously people answer this question in different ways.
Authority: “The bible says that murder is wrong, and church doctrine applies this to abortion as well.” This method is pretty “scientific” as it involves scholarship or research.
Democracy: “A given group has made a majority decision that abortion is wrong or elects representatives to carry this ideal on their behalf, thus abortion is wrong.” This method just involves counting, so it’s also pretty scientific.
Utilitarian: “Availability of reproductive rights brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.” It would be a complex equation but given some hypothetical indicator of happiness and enough data over time, this outcome could be arrived at scientifically as well.
Moral considerations can be modeled and arrived at by use of formulas, but each of these methods ultimately eliminates the space for thinking.
When people arrive at moral judgments in “purely” scientific ways, it seems like a copout, because they refuse to put their own thought out there.
This is the way we formulate moral judgments today. “I would never say that the world ought to be one way or another, but…”
…but clearly the free market has determined that mass media will be drivel.
…but clearly history has shown that women are better at deep family relationships while men are better at shallow public relationships.
…but clearly statistics show that kids who learn art in school do better on standardized tests.
But this attitude is what makes thinkers so cynical about postmodern relativism. Clearly this way of doing things without personal prejudice is not working.
Perhaps in order to effectively change the ought to an is, you must say that the world ought to be one way or another. But on the rare occasions when someone or some group takes a stand in this way, the judgment does not come out of thin air, or out of some subjective opinion. We take a stand on some thing we believe in, something which is out there in the world of das dings.
[tab]How’s that for the subjunctive language of lyricism? And anyway engineers take stands on construction decisions all the time, there is no perfect model dam, there are drawbacks and ethical dilemmas inherent in every design. That’s why the warmongerers at Boeing hire engineering ethicists, to cover their legal asses.[/tab]
For some, this sort of “intellectual” semantics is precisely what makes philosophy so unappealing.
Which is to say it has little or nothing to do with the world we actually live in.
“Objective” and “subjective” are just words we invented in order to distinguish two very different ways of understanding the world around us. Objective knowledge is said to be applicable to all while a subjective point of view is merely a prejudice that cannot be universally applied.
For example, a series of events will unfold at the Fukushima nuclear plant over the next few months. Either this will occur or that will occur. And it will occur or not occur because, objectively, the laws of physics will manifest themselves. And this will be dependent upon the either/or decisions being made by those trying to contain what could literally become one or more full-scale nuclear meltdowns. The engineers will do this or they will do that. And as a result of this the nuclear crisis will get better or worse.
Now, the logicians and the epistemologists can bring out their technical arsenals and argue endlessly over the proper definitions and meanings to employ when we discuss human perception and conception.
Fine. When it is finally resolved, they can inform us.
In the meantime the distinction I make between objective and subjective is, for all practical purposes, what will be employed by those actually discussing what is actually unfolding now in Japan.
But how is that discussion different from the one that revolves around whether [morally, ethically, politically] we ought to pursue nuclear power? Here objective facts can be employed but in the end we can never derive anything other than subjective points of view.
That’s the distinction I am making. The one we can readily relate to world events as they unfold from day to day in the non-technical realm of…reality? In other words, not just a point of view contained in a world of words.
Ah, this is something I can understand. Thanks for the clarification. I do have some thoughts about this and I’ll try to get back to you soon.
You don’t have to use quotations, call it as you see it. I’m not playing with semantics, though. I’m saying ‘objectivity’ is an approximation. And the world we live in is the only thing it has to do with.
That’s one way of looking at it.
Objective = independent of the mind
Subjective = entirely dependent upon the mind
I agree that ‘objectivity’ is a practical assumption in many ways. However, the world is not giving us information, so to speak. It isn’t imposing itself upon our senses. We “pull” information from the world via the senses. There is no getting around perception.
So, to summarize, the ‘objective’ result is entirely dependent upon the subjects involved. Go figure.
They aren’t looking for universality. They are looking for a sufficient solution for these particular circumstances.
This isn’t true. We derive relationships, commonalities, that sort of thing. Not ‘objective’, not ‘subjective’, but something that is both dynamic and shared. “Inter-subjective”, as Rasava says.
Anyway, that isn’t a difference here. That’s the point. Everything we ‘know’ is obtained through a perspective.
And my contention is that perspective is precisely how we relate.
Yes, I did mistake your point. Sorry.
My point is the dam will be built or it will not be built. But there are those who insist the construction will result in the destruction of the local environment. Yet other folks will insist just as adamently that greater economic prosperity overrides that concern.
Does it?
Now, if you were chosen to resolve this dispute which side’s arguments would be the most reasonalbe? Do you believe the most reasonable arguments reflect the most ethical in turn? And if you go beyond reason and include other “measures” what would they be?
In my world, the dam would be built democratically. In other words, the side able to prevail politically when a vote is taken “wins”. But that doesn’t make the decision the right one, only the one that got the most votes.
And if we really want to be realistic about how these things get done we will acknoledge in turn the fact that votes like this are bought and paid for all the time.
So much for ethics.
iambiguous:
But Einstein’s paradigm shift could be explored empirically in ways that philosophical equivalents can never be. You don’t find complex mathematical equations able to be confirmed and replicated “out in the world” in the works of most philosophers.
I’m saying politics is rooted in the assumption that moderation, negociation and compromise are philosophically the most reasonable way in which to pursue values and behaviors that come into conflict. That, in other words, a deontological approach is not. But those who embrace one or another rendition of God, ideology, and the philosopher-king [i.e. Ayn Rand’s metaphysical ethics] certainly don’t agree.
That question is answered in the political sphere.
The extent to which it destroys the extant environment is largely answered within the realm of science.
Which value wins out - the extant environment or the economic advantages is a matter of philosophy, for this is a question of fundamental values.
Each has its role, and none is lessened by the others. This is just how it happens. It’s not philosophy to say this, it’s just how it happens.
The political arrangements may vary, and differing parties may wield varying power, but it’s still politics. The laws governing these matters are and have been influenced my morality, social philosophy, historical practise, and other influences. Science plays its role not only in the engineering, but in the sense that it can tell us what the environmental bad, but also the good, is, based on the results as seen through the prism of what society deems as good or bad. An artificial lake destroys one facet of the eco-system but creates another.
Philosophy isn’t everything, but these elements - as described above, are not playing a zero-sum game. We don’t have to abandon moral thinking to build a dam, or to play power politics. You seem to think that each is a separate realm, completely insulated from the other. Each influences the other. And people disagree about how to move forward and whether past actions are good or bad. Philosophy provides the conceptual vocabulary for these disagreements.
That’s not philosophy’s job. A philosophical argument, or position, should be reasonable. But philosophy is only part of the process. It’s in the background. It’s in the fundamentals. That’s philosophy’s job. Science does its job, and then politics takes over.
But this is just a daily fact of life. Why are you shedding all these tears over it? Everybody knows this already. We hire scientists to design the damn, and elect politicians to decide on whether to build it. But we don’t hire philosophers for this, because they have already done their part long before this specific issue came up - they have already influenced law and morality and even science. So there’s nothing to get upset about here. Philosophy does not stand side-by-side with the the other players - it’s already part of each player.
Here’s some lobbyist groups - the NRA, of which I am a member and for which I thank a god I do not believe in. 4th largest lobby group, I believe. AARP - a bunch of mom and pops is the biggest. The teacher’s union is in the top ten. Be as cynical as you want. There is nothing unethical about me giving money to the NRA to make sure I can keep my guns.
But I’m puzzled. Philosophy doesn’t count. The political system is corrupt. Again, I ask - what would actually work for you?
Hume was extremely influential is ridding science of God. it made for better science and better government policy toward science. He didn’t do it alone, but remember, he was charged with heresy. It was Hume and those like him who helped bring about a world where that doesn’t happen - in the West. Changes like that don’t happen for no reason - there are still countries where such a charge can be brought.
Yeah, we should watch out for the 17 people who still take Rand seriously. I’m not sure if anyone would disagree with you, though. Everyone brings their philosophical beliefs to the table - isn;t that what democracy is all about?
Yes, it is an approximation. Why? Because no one knows with an absoltute certainty why anything happens at all. To grasp that you would need to be privy to the objective foundation upon which existence itself rest. If there is one at all.
But in our interactions out in the world there are things we are reasonably certain about because science has conclusively linked them—sans Hume’s objection regarding correlation and causality—to the laws of physics.
For Example: Human biology and sex either will or will not result in conception. But aborting the unborn is neither moral nor immoral.
This distinction is either grasped or it is not. In the first context, language can be used to objectively describe what is or is not unfolding. In the second, language is only a subjective point of view.
Again: there’s acknowledging the distinction between the perception of abortion as a medical procedure and the perception of abortion as an ethical issue.
iambiguous wrote:
For example, a series of events will unfold at the Fukushima nuclear plant over the next few months. Either this will occur or that will occur. And it will occur or not occur because, objectively, the laws of physics will manifest themselves. And this will be dependent upon the either/or decisions being made by those trying to contain what could literally become one or more full-scale nuclear meltdowns. The engineers will do this or they will do that. And as a result of this the nuclear crisis will get better or worse.
Only insofar as the subjects reconfigured nature into a nuclear power plant. That they did so revolves entirely around either/or calculations. That, perhaps, they should not have revolves far more clearly around subjective value judgments.
And, of course, judgments that revolve around political economy: $$$$
But the unfolding crisis there is predicated on what can/will go wrong given a particular sequence of events embedded in the laws of nature. In other words, it is true for any nuclear plant built in any nation for any reason at any time. The solution [or lack thereof] is inherently mirrored in the problem itself.
But we can’t approach nuclear power as a moral issue in that way. We can’t devise a set of arguments such that the only right answer is, “yes, constructing nuclear power plants [or bombs] is the most virtuous [the most rational] thing to do.”
iambiguous wrote:
But how is that discussion different from the one that revolves around whether [morally, ethically, politically] we ought to pursue nuclear power? Here objective facts can be employed but in the end we can never derive anything other than subjective points of view.
Yes, these relationships can exist and they can be predicated on truths. For example, it can be argued by those who wish to pursue nuclear power plants that in building them we lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and this is crucial if we wish to stop the global warming that might devaste the planet. This is true. Or is it? There are those who argue global warming is a myth. And there are those who argue we should switch to solar, wind and other “green” fuels. Or those who insist we should abandon altogether the modern industrial society and go back to living off the land without the wretched technologies that [ultimately] make our lives miserable.
But these “perspectives” are rooted in value judgments that are far more subjective—and problematic—than those batted back and forth by the folks who make the various fuel technologies possible.
I’m not going to respond to this entire post, as it was made in response to Statik’s. But language is equally effective in either case. I the first, it describes the possible (or expected) outcomes. In the second, language is not itself a point of view, but is describing points of view.
These are pragmatic “links”, though. Things are not linked as such by science, we use science to describe those relations for some purpose. Either way, our descriptions remain dynamic [and must] regardless of what we choose to presume.
“Objectivity” is a description of a subjective point of view. Say a woman has sex and uses a pregnancy test that shows up negative. She takes that as an ‘objective’ description, even though it is uncertain, because she believes those pregnancy tests give ‘objective’ facts. Doctors tell some injured people they’ll never walk again based on all ‘objective’ evidence, but some do. ‘Objectivity’ is a way of looking at something, not some transcendental source of unadulterated truth.
Really? This needed clarification four times? I get it. I acknowledge it. I’m saying that your distinction is based on a faulty premise. The medical procedure is still only ‘objective’ insofar as it is perceived as such.
No subjectivity involved in our mutual exploitation of nature whatsoever? How do you propose either/or calculations are made, if not subjectively then grouped into consensus? Even a decision regarding something ‘objective’ is subjective in nature. Are you claiming that thought can be ‘objective’ as well?
I don’t understand the last sentence, unless it is just a statement of the obvious. But the crisis is predicated on unexpected circumstances and unpredicted results. These things occur under very particular circumstances. What may have happened anywhere else, under similar conditions, is speculation. I don’t get the “embedded in the laws of nature” part either – like nature has little penalty flags it throws out when rules are broken. Nature is far too volatile and dynamic to be so mechanistic and predictable [in my opinion]. We essentially exploit nature until ramifications are realized. Up until that point, we weren’t worried about how the nuclear power plants in Japan affected their environment.
Why not? I’d image someone could construct a persuasive argument as such. I think you’re just saying that it would be near impossible to convince everyone of the argument’s validity. However, the same is true with ‘objective’ arguments. Some people still don’t believe we’ve been to the moon. We, not nature, decide how ‘objective’ something is.
You are furthering my point here. Your “objective” either/or calculations are still arbitrary judgments to some extent. The only difference is that an ‘objective’ judgment relies as much on agreeability as it does predictability.
How do you know? I bet some are more cautious, skeptical, or critical than others. However, that you referred to the former examples as “more subjective” tells me that you’re starting to understand my position. ‘Objectivity’ is an appearance of “less subjectivity” given by inter-subjective relationships. Something ‘objective’ cannot exist as an object but to an observer who perceives it as such.
Yes, and some folks [though increasingly fewer] read philosophers in the political realm. My point revolves around encouraging them to read ethicists who eschew a deontological approach to human interaction.
Science can tell us what the dam will do to the environment. But, as with philosophy, it cannot tell us if this is advisable. Science, as with philosophy, is not qualified to differentiate between what is and what ought to be. It can offer advice and provide a reasonably intelligent empirical analysis. The rest however is buried in dasein.
That’s sort of my point though. Philosophy can go in so far here and then it has to withdraw. It might speak of “fundamental values” but it cannot adjudicate any actual conflicts that arise between competing sets of values. At least not if the point is to settle thses disputes once and for all.
You say:
Philosophy puts these disputes in perspective. It doesn’t abandon them but it does abandon resolving them. At least my philosophy does.
And while a “conceptual” vocabulary gives us a sense of continuity [if we speak the same language] it is no less limited regarding resolutions. On the other hand, “moderation, negociation and compromise” is, at times, also of limited value “out in the world”. How do we embrace democracy and the rule of law if the law being proposed sanctions genocide?
You always point this out but you forget the philosophers who insist we can use philosophical tools to conjugate human interaction and devise deontological prescriptions and proscriptions. It is those folks I address my points to.
Philosophy does count. But it only counts so much. Then, yes, we are forced to rely on one or another political dynamic to go about the business of imposing rules.
That’s what “works” for me: democracy and the rule of law. Or, if this democracy and the rule of law sanctions behavior some deem [existentially] to be immoral [genocide, clitorectomies, child abuse], the willingness of folks to take a stand against “the majority rule”. That, for example, is the beauty of the Bill of Rights and of constructing institutional barriers to tyranny re “the separation of powers” in the U.S. Constitution.
But nothing is perfect because there is not way of saying what perfection is in human interaction. Not regarding so-called Virtues.
Literally millions of people still take her seriously. But more to the point are the hundreds of millions who take seriously the idea that we can differentiate moral from immoral behavior the way we differentiate elements on the Periodic Table.
And that still includes any number of philosophical schools.
I don’t think you mean that. i think you are an anti-Kantian, which i am as well. But I suspect that there is such a thing as a non-absolutist but deontological ethic that you would accept. My problem with you is that you can only be talking about religious morality - who even reads Kant anymore. I secretly wish that you’d jettison the shmancy philosophical terms and just say what you mean. Still and all, I am wondering which ethicists you would recommend.
Which is to say that peeps can make up their own minds. Would you like it to be different? Why?
So what? What do you want for free? Who, since maybe Hegel, is saying otherwise? And since Hegel is irrelevant except for a few leftover commies, who, after Kant, says otherwise? Who are you arguing with?
When has this come up?
Kant. You are more obsessed with him even than I am.
There are democracies that force clitorectomies on people? I gotta read the Times more often.
No, it doesn’t. Again, you are talking about religion.
The descriptions are ultimately dynamic because we don’t know ultimately why the laws of science are what they are.
And thus: we don’t know if they will always be what we describe them to be now. That’s Hume again.
But what engineers know about building devices that execute prisoners is on a level far more sophisticated [and unchanging] than what ethicists know about the morality of execution.
I make this distinction only. Why? Because it is the only distinction we can make sans an ultimate knowledge of existence itself.
But the fact is she either is or is not pregnant. The pregnancy test is simply the best science can come up with now to determine that.
But suppose it is determined definitively that she is. Is there a device ethicists can come up with to help her determine definitively whether in fact aborting it is moral or immoral?
Is there a way in which philosophy can help her to determine if it is in fact her moral duty to give birth?
The procedure has to be objective [based on the laws of human biology] before it can be perceived as such. We can’t derive an objective moral resolution because it does not exist. Or, rather, we can’t devise a rational argument to demonstrate an objective basis for choosing either birth or abortion.
Yes, we all approach nature with contradictory assumptions about what is true and what is not. But nature straightens us out soon enough. There might be any number of conflicting proposals being suggested in the Fukushima nuclear plant right now. But some will prove to be far more in alignment with a resolution than will others.
This is not the case regarding the moral issue of nuclear power. Should we or shouldn’t we pursue it can only be points of view.
iambiguous wrote:
…the unfolding crisis at Fukushima] is predicated on what can/will go wrong given a particular sequence of events embedded in the laws of nature. In other words, it is true for any nuclear plant built in any nation for any reason at any time. The solution [or lack thereof] is inherently mirrored in the problem itself.
If there is a problem and the solution is returning to the point before the problem occured you are either able to or not. And if you are able to, you will either be successful or you will not.
And this is the case at any nuclear power plant constructed anywhere around the globe. Though the problems might be particular to each plant they are still manifestations/applications of the laws of physics. Laws that prevail at all plants. Thus, however “volaltile and dynamic” nature might be, it behaves in accordance with how nature is. We might not grasp it fully but science basically works on the assumption that, fundamentally, nuclear physics is the same everywhere. That’s why any number of scientists [like Einstein and Hawking] were/are always searching for a TOE. What will ultimately explain everything?
But is this TOE compatible with human autonomy? Perhaps the discussions and debates we have about moral responsibility are just an illusion. Perhaps human behavior ultimately abides by the same laws as all other matter.
How would [could] someone demonstrate that nuclear power is either moral or immoral? What would [could] such an argument look like? How would it be tested? As opposed to the arguments that were once made about whether nuclear bombs or power plants could even be constructed at all?
In other wrods, I see value judgments as qualitatively different from the judgments scientists make about utilizing the laws of physics to reconfigure nature technologically.
Folks like Heidegger often railed against the rampant technology that has become the modern industrial state. But no one argued about whether it existed or not.
Yes, I certainly agree with that. To some extent we can’t get around the manner in which we bring our own subjective assumptions into these discussions. But they are arbitrary [or wholly subjective] only up to the point where someone is able to demonstrate their validity. Or lack thereof.
On the other hand, out at the very edge of scientific exploration [the quantum world, the universe, speculations about the very nature of existence], there is still only a clash of personal assumptions. And that may never not be the case.
How do I know that arguments over value judgments aren’t basically the same? Well, I don’t, of course. Not objectively. But I do know this: From the time of Aristotle to the present day, nothing short of astonding progress has been made in understanding nature. Can the same be said about value judgments? If they had nuclear technology back then do you suppose we would have long ago resolved whether it should be pursued as an energy source?
What all of this reflects to me is the inherent ambiguity of mixing mind with matter.
Yes. I agree.
Morality is rarely presumed ‘objective’ like an electric chair is. That says nothing about the level of sophistication involved in the formulation of ideas, though. Ethicists don’t “know” about morality the same that the engineer doesn’t “know” what it’s like to be sentenced to death. They both explore possibilities and gather what they can based on their subjective experiences, then propose more ‘objective’ solutions or options.
Is your point that morality is more arbitrary than what we fancy as ‘objective’? Ethicists have no convenient means of measure. Engineers do. However, the way an engineer designs his particular version of a mechanism is not so different from how an ethicist might incorporate his own bias in his version of ethics.
At what moment does her condition qualify as “pregnancy”? Surely the pregnancy would be an ‘objective’ fact before it were realized as a subjective fact. However, objects are not concerned with “facts”, only subjects. So the “fact” - ‘objective’ as it may seem - still only occurs to the subject. A “fact”, then, is an assumption. Nothing we know has been introduced to us an “objective fact” – it all comes through perspective[s].
Sure, a Bible could be an example.
You’re going to have to explain what you mean by “in fact”. A “fact” has no necessary loyalty to reality itself, just how we can expect that reality to be experienced.
…what? So, you’re claiming that something perceived as ‘objective’ must be ‘objective’?
This isn’t true. That an argument is “rational” doesn’t imply it is air-tight or undeniable. People have used life as an ‘objective’ basis for choosing birth. People have used rape as an ‘objective’ basis for choosing abortion. Both rational arguments, they just don’t work in the way of positing absolutes [which I’m not a fan of anyway].
Sure, but how does that make thought ‘objective’? We interact with objects, our thoughts do not. In other words, the resolutions will still never be ‘objectively’ absolute, just sufficient.
How “best” to resolve the issue is no less a point of view. Perhaps easier to justify, but still a matter of belief, assumption, or persuasion.
No gray area there at all? The solution can’t logically be a return as that is an impossibility. It is a remedy. In implementing a remedy, some success can be obtained without completely solving the problem. That is the idea of a remedy, though – it leads to a solution.
When we get cut, we put a band aid on it to help the healing process. We don’t go out looking for a new, fresh patch of skin to implant.
Huh?
As far as I can tell, Einstein did not expect to find any ultimate explanation. But to answer your question: nothing. Which is why ‘objectivity’ is best considered as an approximation and assumption. We have no basis for such an assumption beyond pragmatic utility.
Again, thoughts are not ‘objective’. I am thinking about eating ice cream right now, but I don’t taste, feel, or see anything resembling ice cream.
That depends on the person, and more on the audience. The argument, and it’s testability, would likely rely heavily on some kind of pathos, though. We’d essentially be testing the extent of our empathy, or compassion, regarding some hypothetical.
Well, yeah. Some judgments are more emotive whereas some are more reasonable. Our methods vary, but they always depend on, and assume, an observer.
That is a pretty impractical argument unless it is posed for a purpose. Debating the existence of a thing rarely yields any useful information.
I agree with this. Although, I would add that right in the ‘meat’ of scientific exploration there is still only agreeability and predictability, which is to say no universals or absolutes.
We understand through exploitation. The knowledge still comes from experience and is therefore a product of perception. If nuclear technology had been around since Aristotle, I’m sure we’d have far more information at our disposal to make an educated decision than we do now, while we are still learning …the hard way.
I’m not getting at an inherent ambiguity. More of an inherent relation between mind and matter.
A random aside: what makes you think this? A big blade, dropped from a high place, cuts heads off. That is not sophisticated knowledge.
But in order for the execution to be construed as “civilized” considerably more knowledge has to be put into it. But that just reinforces my point about dasein. And the manner in which dasein is situated historically and culturally.