on the use of the ignore button....

Yeah, I guess it’s all dasein in the end anyway, fuck it.

But what if we are spirits in the material world?

You’re just a material girl?

Prom, I’m a psychiatrist.

Only boys who save their pennies make my rainy day-ays.

Yo, seriously, listen to this whole album and tell me how many rappers could spit freestyle like that?

this

Actually, it’s not dasein if the question is “did you put someone on ignore – foe them – here at ILP?”

You either did or you didn’t. It’s not just someone’s personal opinion.

But: the reason someone does choose to put another on ignore is, in my view, often rooted in dasein. Why did you choose to do so when others do not? What factors in your life led up to you making this choice?

Also, if the discussion shifts to whether putting another on ignore is rational or justified, that too, in my opinion, is rooted largely in dasein.

Another example:

Mr. Reasonable plays the stock market. That can either be confirmed as true or false. Objectively.

But if the discussion shifts to why he plays the stock market while others do not, that is more in keeping with my own existential understanding of the “self” as the embodiment of dasein. Given a particular historical, cultural and experiential context.

And, in turn, if the question is, “Is capitalism evil?” the answers we give as individuals are also derived in large part from the subjective parameters of the lives we lived.

There does not appear to be an objective answer that philosophers or ethicists or political economists can provide us.

Hope that helped. :laughing:

Covid-19 is a hoax. True or false. Objectively.

Covid-19 is a harmless virus. True or false. Objectively.

People have natural immunity to Covid-19. True or false. Objectively.

Covid-19 is a conspiracy to . True or false. Objectively.

Ignore this.

Seriously, however, regarding answers to questions of this sort, this thread would seem to explore the part where, depending on how outraged someone becomes reacting to the answers that another gives, they put them on ignore.

An objectivist might do this because he or she has become so attached to their own Coalition of Truth, they can become quite incensed when others don’t eventually come around to it as well.

The “psychology of objectivism” I call it.

As for the answers to questions like this, what else is there other than, to the best of our ability, making an attempt to demonstrate that what we believe is true in our head about covid, others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

What actual hard evidence do they have that covid is a hoax, that it is harmless, that people have a natural immunity to it, that this or that conspiracy is credible regarding it.

Demonstrate to Wendy that Covid is not harmless.

You’re going to run into the dasein wall.

So much for the simple split into dasein/not dasein.

A curious thing about Wendy. As I recall, in her signature, she used to note she was member #2 in obsrvr524’s Coalition of Truth. Now that is no longer there.

So, did she quit, or was she kicked out?

Maybe over covid?

And you don’t demonstrate anything to the fulminating fanatic objectivists like her, you only toe their line or what might be described here as the equivalent of being spat on.

Now, I made a number of points above regarding your post. Points that you ignored.

Give it another shot, okay?

One point.

As Pedro says “it’s all dasein in the end”.

If someone believes that 1+1=3 then that’s dasein. (Or Trump is still president. Or Hillary is president.)

Being able to convince him otherwise or to demonstrate otherwise is also dasein … for both of you.

So your split fails. It’s all dasein.

To say it’s not all dasein is a rejection of dasein. And that requires an embrace of objectivity and certain tools for determining objectivity.

…or maybe Wendy is the figment of some-one’s imagination… like a few of the accounts here seem to be.

Let’s leave Lyssa out of this.

Or, hmm, phoneutria?

Note to lorikeet:

Wendy too?

Ah, now I get it! The equivalent of you arguing, “Free will? Determinism? What’s the difference?”

All I can do here is to note the manner in which, subjectively, I construe the meaning of dasein given particular contexts. The distinction I make between I in the either/or world [Biden in the Oval Office] and “i” in the is/ought world [Biden doing a terrific/terrible job in the Oval Office].

Though, sure, if you don’t go there, and your point above works for you in a philosophy forum, let that be all that counts.

Then it’s only a matter of taking it to the grave with you. And the role [if any] that dasein might play on the other side.

I don’t care who the f*ck is who, as long as they keep their magi away from me… I’m not into people f’ing with grown people online… f’ing pathetic.

Sure. You have these subjective distinctions and differences.

I question how they work in practice. And I’m not the only one.

You can go there or not.

Iambiguous is too attached to lack of accountability to others and himself to have honest discussions about moral proofs.

Moral proofs do exist. We may not have all of them, but we have some of them… just like math proofs.

The irony should not be lost on any member of this board that iambiguous has the most consoling stance of everyone here.

Iambiguous is overcompensating for lack of analytic capability and creativity by exhibiting the least of these qualities on ILP (perhaps the whole world), he found a world of words that insulates him from thinking about people who make thinking happen, everyday. Real geniuses who do real things.

His overcompensation is cutting and pasting his old stuff like a bot, and then using emogies to try to shame people who do actual intellectual work.

As far as iambiguous is concerned, he’s done learning.

That’s not how things get done.

Also, iambiguous has his parachute with holes in it which he thinks is the perfect shell to his bubble, “unless of course I’m wrong”

Dude, you are always wrong about this shit.

Look, I’m the first to admit that you may well be making a very, very, very important philosophical point here. Technical or otherwise.

But what is it?

If Tom wants to argue that Hillary Clinton now occupies the White House and that is his subjective account of reality derived from dasein, okay, fine.

But: I believe it is possible to demonstrate to him that this is not actually, objectively true. And, unless, he is, say, hopelessly insane, it ought to be enough to shift his I in either/or world dasein over to Joe Biden.

On the other hand, if he wants to argue that, yes, Joe Biden now occupies the White House, but he is doing a terrible job as president and that is his subjective account of reality derived from dasein, okay, fine too.

But this “i”, in my view, reflects my own understanding of the “self” in the is/ought world as encompassed in these threads:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Though, sure I may still be misunderstanding your point above.

How about if we “go there” given a new context altogether? How about if you pick it?

You know, assuming that it does make a difference if you can choose to do so of your own volition or if your “choice” is entirely derived from the laws of matter resulting in the only possible “choice” you ever could make.