I have to tell you though, I am seriously disappointed.
Without clearly acknowledging that philosophy is not and never can be a science, you won’t make any progress beyond saying trivial things, dressing them up in pretentious word salads and then defending them like a rabid dog because you think a disagreement with your own philosophical positions is like somebody denying that gravity works in a vertical line on Earth…this is besides autistic girls and their fantasies.
Science can be proven and disapprove, philosophy can only be argued. in science, the process does not matter if the conclusions are true, in philosophy…the conclusions are the process. Aristotles’ philosophical conclusions would be worthless without his own process of debating for them but Einsteins conclusions would be as valid and useful without Einstein or with. One of the many confusions morons run into in this context is treating philosophical words like scientific terms…but many others…I could go on and on and on. What is dasein? Well…it is nothing and everything…we have an argument, a word and something the word points to through an argument…Karl jaspers had dasein, Heidegger copied it…the old fart provides dasein and points it at something but fails to provide an argument hence is utterly trivial…conflicting goods, skyhooks, abortions, dasein are completely tautological and trivial without a good argument behind them…it’s not like science kooks…you can’t just say 1 +1 is 2…you saying there are conflicting values is not like you pointing out a new chemical element…without arguments…without elaboration…you saying there are conflicting goods in the world is either trivial or nonsensical muttering…you think you see something…but you don’t…unless you argued for it, it does not automatically exist…philosophy deals with what science is not equipped to penetrate and science can only penetrate that which is accessible to empirical senses.
Sure, if you wish to turn a discussion of who now occupies the Oval Office into a war of “personal opinions” be my guest.
Fine. I’m talking about the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in making a distinction between how I would answer the questions 1] “who now occupies the Oval Office” and 2] “is the man who occupoies the Oval Office now doing a good job overall?”
No, some do think that my positions reflect those of a communist and that anyone who wishes to be construed as a rational human being must think the same. I contend that I am not a communist here and now and am more than willing to explain why in detail.
Also, how would you go about demonstrating what you believe here beyond merely holding it as your own personal opinion?
Indeed, and I noted the distinction I make above in regard to Biden in the White House. Where is your argument regarding the distinction here that you make yourself?
It’s inconsequential only given the context in which it might come up. If I embrace and praise Biden as a great president in a crowd of pro-Trump fanatics who knows what the consequences might be. Or imagine the consequences of a Jew in Nazi Germany demanding of an SS officer that he demonstrate that in fact, objectively, Jews are as the Nazis depict them.
Though, sure, if you wish to ignore that part – the part about context – and merely assert that my own distinction in the OP is that of a “made-up objectivist mind” so be it. It is, after all, about what I would expect from you.
Again, the distinction I make is between the either/or world fact of a particular abortion which is able to be established objectively and the opinions of those who insist that abortion is either moral or immoral as though this too can be established as true objectively.
Only I am willing to concede that it may well be able to be established as such. Okay, I tell the moral objectivists, what is your argument to establish this…and how do you go about demonstrating that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share your conclusions.
You’ll either go there or you won’t.
Note to others:
So far no surprises.
“Science” went under the name “natural philosophy” for a long time… during this time “science” was used in english to mean “collective knowledge”, that is to say every kind of knowledge we had.
What we today call science and it’s methodology is a product of philosophy, most laws and values enshrined in any nation are the products of philosophy… most moral teachings are products of philosophy
This is an internet forum… the discussions you will find here are rarely any more appropriate examples of “philosophy” than is a bar-room debate between two drunk idiots.
What we say on this board might be inconsequential… but let’s not ignore how unreasonably generous we would be to call any of it a contribution to philosophy.
bro what are you even arguing about? you keep repeating this shit as if it had some secret powerful massage… do some people think abortion is moral? no shit…do some think its not? no shit…why do you keep repeating this shit over and over???you keep using this sentence over and over like its something personal to you: the way I construe dasein…jesus you are a fucking creep bro…
I find, often, that people use this as an excuse not to try hard. As if, if you were in a university or on a journal, your brain would be a different one.
To not try hard in philosophy, so hard that it risks your sanity and even life, as it has claimed the lives of some of the denizens you denigrate, is worse of a crime of cowardice than not to attempt it at all.
What?
Me too.
Ok.
No, thank you. It would bore me immensely, and it is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about you and dasein.
In the ways that I have. Again, I can’t walk you through everything.
I’m starting to get the impression that you are slow.
It’s inconsequential in terms of what it says about reality. You might think Trump is great, an SS officer might have secretly thought Hitler was a fag, Trump was still president, Hitler was still dictator. What part of this are you having such trouble with?
You sound like my ex.
But your opinion of abortion is such an objectivist one, that your approach to opposition is insult and your advocacy is full government imposition. It is established in any given mind, given any set of intellectual positions, such as the one you have, being communism.
I did.
I feel you: only disappointments.
Oh well. We get the fruit that the tree gives.
It’s less an excuse and more good advice… there’s a really old saying about pearls before swine, that applies here.
Now on the rare occasion that you encounter someone educated enough that you believe could appreciate the difference between your effort or lack thereof, then by all means, try to have a fruitful conversation. If you’re lucky you’ll walk away having taught, or better yet, learned something of value… but most of the time, this place is best suited to have a higher word count, philosophy themed, twitter battle… like the one you’re engaged in, right now.
The evolution of science and philosophy is a complicated subject I don’t know much about but it is also meaningless in this context because assuming things evolve without changing and assuming you can derive a trajectory based on a things origins is a common logical fallacy. I, speaking as somebody living in the 21st century, know what science is and what philosophy is, right now. What it used to be, what it will be and how and why is a completely different question. Ultimately: is science and philosophy the same? I say it’s a ridiculous proposition and can back it up. Philosophy, as I know it, deals with the questions human race has which the scientific method can’t tackle by it’s design(like what is evil) or the questions the science can’t yet tackle to any satisfactory degree and might never be able to tackle(free will). Or the mix or two. Now…if the Yank baby boomers want to claim talking about evil or such topics is pointless…that is fine by me…changes nothing because people will have these questions and will seek answers to them anyhow. And the morons like the cunts on shitthyself who claim they can answer philosophical questions scientifically can suck me dick…they have no fucking clue what the scientific method actually is and what kind of rigour and processes it requires…they are typical quack charlatans calling on a scientific authority to back their delusions and schemes up
I guess that makes you the swine, boy.
Go on and jack off in front of the mirror or something.
No, you’re right… I really should treat this conversation like that between two respectable academics.
And obviously, yes. on plenty of topics I’m too ignorant to be a worthwhile conversation partner and if anyone decided to write me a doctoral thesis on such a topic and ask my opinion I’d let them know, I’m a swine and they should send that pearl to someone who might at least be able to comprehend it, much less critique it…
You do get the a metaphor, right? Did you just hear swine and get offended or is it just generally offensive to imagine yourself being ignorant?
I mean this metaphor already seemed to send you off into a tailspin… perfect example of a wasted pearl.
Dunno what there is to add to this topic, you’ve helped demonstrate and underline my point in record speed…
I count a total of two back and forths for things to have devolved into dick measuring.
No, you really should not.
Only respectable academics can talk, the rest should sit on a branch and grunt.
Now I get it. You want to reconfigure our exchange here into just another rendition of Pedro’s Corner. One line – or even one word – at a time answers.
And Stoogery: make it all about me.
Let’s move on…
Again, let’s get back to the part where answers here are anchored to an objective reality embedded in the either/or world or to subjective/subjunctive “personal opinions” that are “anchored” existentially in dasein.
The part where, for those who insist that their own moral and political value judgments do in fact reflect the objective truth, the consequences for those who do not toe their line can be severe. Up to and including “final solutions”.
How can my personal opinion regarding abortion be both a personal opinion and objectivist at the same time. Aside from in your head?
And my approach to those who embrace political prejudices [rooted in dasein] that are the opposite of mine is to acknowledge that their own arguments are no less reasonable than my own. Merely derived from a different set of assumptions in regard to which came first…the rights of the unborn or the rights of the pregnant women.
And then, once again, off the deep end you go in merely asserting things like this…
“…that your approach to opposition is insult and your advocacy is full government imposition. It is established in any given mind, given any set of intellectual positions, such as the one you have, being communism…”
…as though in asserting it that makes it true.
Yes, you and dasein. I thought that’s what we were here to discuss. I’m losing patience.
I don’t know what any of this means, I am here to talk about you and dasein. And I did this here:
Same as anybody else, that you accuse of the same thing. Moving on…
No, it is not, it is to insult them and claim that government imposition of abortion is the only objectively good way to proceed.
'Tis not asserting it that makes it true.
Actually, I’m amazed it took me this long to reduce him down to “answers” like this.
Here’s the thing though…
With others on other threads, he actually is able to sustain rather substantive discussions.
But with me?
Nope.
My guess – and that’s all it is – is that this revolves around the fact that in regard to either religion or politics or morality, he really is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist. And the very last thing this sort will tolerate is even the remote possibility that their own precious Self might instead be but another run-of-the-mill embodiment of “I” derived existentially from dasein.
With others, the objectivist can argue back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. With me, however, the very question of right and wrong itself comes into question.
Better to be wrong about something relating to religion and morality and politics than to be “fractured and fragmented”.
Note to others:
Anyway, is there someone here who would be interested in discussing dasein in regard to the distinction I make in the OP?
You know, here on the philosophy board.
Lol, you didn’t say a word about dasein the whole way.
Fuck it, I’m satisfied.
Again, anyone else?
Here in the philosophy forum.