That sounds rather like Fate or Destiny or Determinism.
At least Camus allowed us a few choices, however essentially meaningless they are.
I thought you answered your own question - dead is dead, no fitting in, and that’s as good as wonder can get.
I cannot be overwhelmed by my limitations. I figure I do not need the stress. To the vast unknowable to mine mind. 
Determinism, yes. That is not to say I don’t afford humanity any notion of ‘freedom.’ I think the luxury of choice comes with understanding, and applies primarily to the passions (meaning the extent of our ‘freedom’ may be our ability to think and act while being conscious of, but not necessarily influenced by, our passions).
Notions such as ‘force’, ‘will’, ‘existence’, etc. are obviously not chosen, they are necessary insofar as they naturally occurred. And, as far as I can tell, a human being that exists, exists as a result of something – that is, determined by something.
Yet how do we know that what we understand we are free to understand? And how are our passions not equally problematic?
But if nature and nurture allow for some measure of freedom, things such as these must still be manifested [embodied] through the interactions of daseins situated in particular historical and cultural contexts. Every choice we make is embedded in an enormously complex intertwining of past, present and future. “I” is, afterall, prefabricated by others for years after we first come into the world. And we are “deteremined” in part by many, many variables either beyond our understanding or beyond our control.
And those we do control are ever ensnared in contingency, chance and change. And, at any moment, a circumstantial landslide can send them spinning in all directions.
What can we know for certain regarding how we ought to live?
iambiguous
In this moment, what are you getting?
The demand to be prepared for all future actions and all situations is the cause of our problems. Every situation is so different; and our attempt to be prepared for all those situations is the one that is responsible for our not being able to deal with situations as they arise.
“What can we know for certain regarding how we ought to live?”
Do we need to know some certain thing to know how we ought to live?
“Ought” could imply a certain moral determinant. If only some axiomatic truth could be found, than things might be okay?
In a possible multi-verse, multi-dimensions with a sexy amount of stars why not go with the flow? How do we know we weren’t something else before we were born? Life taken as only what can be proven as fact for me sometimes feels a little bit limiting. Because it is not observable of who we are before we are born, we were simply nothing? Then again, should there be some way to live? Some people sit and question, so people go along with it happy or sad, some people kill themselves, some people smile, dance, fight… I enjoy this variety…
I don’t think that determinants are so bad after-all though… let me contradict myself and say limitations are pretty cool. Haiku are fun to make because of the rules that are imposed. They challenge us to work with what we got.
Not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that what/how we understand may be determined as well, or that some force literally opposes, or limits, our ability to understand?
Equal to what? My assertion was that the passions are problematic, in this context. We are not affected by outside stimuli the same way we are by emotion. Emotions are often reactionary, if not already adopted as prejudice, so we can easily say the passions are causal. However, understanding the effects of the passions can lead to recognition of the affects. I’m not saying that the passions can be altogether suppressed, but that we can become conscious of those affects.
Of course. I don’t think we developed our passions overnight either. What we’re moving toward is a notion that our only possible freedom is from that which we impose on ourselves.
This is where understanding provides perspective. A circumstantial landslide doesn’t necessarily have to evoke an emotional landslide.
Nothing. There is no universal ‘ought to.’ What you ‘know’ is what you have faith enough to regard as sufficient in the fulfillment of your desires.
Thought itself is limited to its persistence, perseverance, tenacity, continuance, survival and duration, let alone the amount of knowledge had – while perception itself is also not exempt through the restrictions placed on it by the limitations of sense signal translation. There may be an enigmatic kind of ‘understanding’ out there that is for us not able to be known.
what we Humans don’t seem to appreciate and think about is that , so far we are the only planet that can allow life to become to our level , for many light yrs
there is no life on the moon because , wether you believe in a god or not , the enviroment simply does not allow life to take hold , god has limits apparently
and we have not come from nothing
the Universe gives places for life to take hold
lifes energy is always there , its just that not every macro place the Universe gives is conducive to life
I think you may have misinterpreted the question. I realize we are limited by our capabilities, our ‘bodily apparatus’, in terms of perception. I’m asking if iambiguous is asserting that our ability to understand, and subsequently the content of our ‘understanding’, is limited by an opposing force.
iambiguous wrote:
Yet how do we know that what we understand we are free to understand?
We don’t really know what is or is not determined. We don’t really know how to understand this. To the best of our knowledge the big bang begat all there is. And for billions and billions of years that consisted soley of mindless matter obeying the laws of nature. Then mindless matter somehow evolved into mindful matter. But that encompasses just a tiny fraction of the time matter has been around.
In my view, it is certainly not irrational to ask if mind is not just another manifestation of matter—and thus blindly obeying whatever laws propel matter along.
We just don’t know. And, perhaps, our minds are not even capable of knowing this. I live my life acting as though I have free will. But I recognize the manner in which “I” is always embedded in the particular life we have lived. And that life is, in many, many respects, different from the lives others have lived. So it comes down [for me] to objective knowledge [reality] that transcends this and subjective knowledge that does not.
iambiguous wrote:
And how are our passions not equally problematic?
Emotions exist in all of us. We come hard-wired by evolution to experience them. But after we are born, emotions, like cognition, become integrated into a particular community situated in history and in culture. And to the extent emotion is causual varies from person to person. Some allow themselves to be wired into a world that others indoctrinate them into accepting as children. Others break the mold and go about exploring the world around them with increasing sophistication. But however conscious we become of this what are the limitations of philosophy in grappling with this “rationally”? What can we know for sure about what we think and feel? Is there a way to know how we ought to think and feel about certain things?
Thats what I mean by problematic.
But how do we determine this? And how do we know for certain which particular impositions do impede freedom? Freedom in what context? From what point of view?
For example, the electorate in America just voted into office the folks that many other folks are convinced brought on the miseries they want ended. What does it mean to be “free” in evaluating the truthfulness of this? Isn’t it always just a point of view—a prejudice—that is subject to change?
iambiguous wrote:
And those we do control are ever ensnared in contingency, chance and change. And, at any moment, a circumstantial landslide can send them spinning in all directions.
That’s true. But how do we ever really know that we are understanding something the way it should be understood?
The folks down in Port au Prince are still barely recovering from the circumstantial landslide that was a devastating earthquake. And while some may not have endured an emotional landslide, I suspect that most did. Yet their emotional suffering is linked to global forces far beyond their control. It is linked to the Monroe Doctrine and to those who own and operate the global economy. But is this the correct way to understand what I think they don’t understand?
How can I know this?
In the mind of one particular man or woman there resides only the things that particular mind happened upon in the course of living a life. But there are countless other things that did not come into contact with at all. Few people really think through the consequence of this.
This, in my opinion, is our fate as mere mortals. We know what we think we know about certain things. And some things that we think we know can in fact be demonstrated to actually exist. But there are many other things we cannot demonstrate with certainty.
Like the relationships we are discussing here.
I am in essence infinite, the vastness is thus miniscule ~ which makes me incalculably ignorant.
I kinda like being lost in the wilderness, it invokes a certain sense of freedom. Being known or part of something [like one of gods children] makes me incarcerated in that.
Apparently.
Nothing is irrational to ask, in my opinion. What sort of manifestation and ‘matter’ do you propose the mind consists of?
Objective knowledge transcends life? Objectivity may exist independent of any subject, but objective knowledge is subjective insofar as the knowledge is accepted and interpreted by the subject. The problem arises in determining whether or not what you consider ‘objective knowledge’ is truly objective [due to the nature of perception, we can assume your interpretation is likely not a perfect representation of objectivity].
The passions are not inherently rational. We are using logical formulas, or ‘rationale’, to explain something that is often overtly irrational.
Nothing.
That depends on your perspective. A religious person would probably give you a different answer than I would, for instance. My answer is obviously “no”, but I think we have best practices in the absence of certainty. We risk hypotheses.
Do you believe in causality?
We don’t. We risk hypotheses based on our own understanding.
Freedom of will. Subjective.
Yes, in my opinion. Your freedom, in this specific context, would be an ability to evaluate the respective data while being conscious of, but not totally influenced by, your prejudices.
We don’t. We risk hypotheses. Though, it seems pragmatism and/or convention dictates how many people think we should do things.
There is no one, ‘correct’ understanding. Even the same ‘facts’ are interpreted differently.
Just claim knowledge of it. Knowledge is a matter of belief, not objective certainty.
Sure, but the consequences are not all bad either. Some of the finest art, literature, philosophy, etc. is/was created by those with very unique life experiences.
Agreed. Our “knowledge” consists of what we believe to know.
How so? I think they can be demonstrated to behave predictably (or be perceived predictably), but I’m not sure how we’d measure ‘actual existence.’
Namely anything and everything.
iambiguous wrote:
In my view, it is certainly not irrational to ask if mind is not just another manifestation of matter—and thus blindly obeying whatever laws propel matter along.
I don’t know. Pick up a copy of Sam Harris’s, The Moral Landscape. Turn to pages 102 thru 106. It’s a section he calls, “The Illusion of Free Will”. This is an excellent example of just how complex [even illusory] these things are. Somehow “the brain” and “the mind” interact. But what does that actually mean when the task is to choose one thing rather than another?
If God exist, then I suppose objective knowledge transcends human life. But I don’t believe in God.
For me knowledge is objective if it transcends the conflicting narratives of daseins. To explain this I like to use the example of abortion as a medical procedure and abortion as a moral conflict.
In performing an abortion a doctor must have precise knowledge of human biology in order to do so correctly. And she can share this knowledge with any other doctor and they too can perform abortions rationally.
But in debating whether abortion is moral or immoral there is no exact exchange of knowledge. There are only opinions, personal prejudices, existential narratives.
I agree. How emotional and psychological states interface with cognition is still largely a mystery. Of course there were those like Ayn Rand who insisted she could rationally grasp not only why she had particular emotions but what emotions any man or woman must have [in any particular situation] in order to be thought of as rational and moral.
But, emotionally, her own life was largely a train wreck.
All around me I see correlations. And some correlations are so persistent over time I can’t help but suppose they reflect cause and effect. But then when astrophysicists insist that all of what I see as cause and effect originated in a Big Bang that came into existence out of nothing at all, how am I to respond? Of course: what the hell does that mean? How can nothing at all cause everything there is?
iambiguous wrote:
Freedom in what context? From what point of view?
I’m really not clear regarding what you construe to be “subjective”. I use it differently, I suspect. For me something is subjective when it is merely a point of view that emanates from a particular mind describing something that can only be a particular point of view. Something is objective when it transcends mere points of view and describes what is real for all of us. Even though some of us will, of course, insist it is otherwise. But it is something that can then be demonstrated out in the world such that it can be shown to be apllicable to all of us. Like gravity or mathematics or the earth’s position in the solar system.
What do you mean by “risking hypotheses”?
I don’t agree. Knowledge of my name, my adddress, my telephone number, my social security number etc. is certainly objective enough for me.
And, if someone questions this, I have many, many ways in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true. Unless, of course, you are arguing solipsism.
But it is also true that what motivates many to behave as they do is often predicated not on what is true but on what they claim to know is true. But this doesn’t mean that others are not able to convince them that what they think they know is true is not in fact what is true.
Where I make the distinction is between facets of our lives that are true for all and facets that not.
For example, I can provide detailed knowledge of how an execution is carried out. And my description will match precisely what is done step by step. But how do I do the same when the question shifts to, “is capital punishment ethical?”
It is interesting how you speak of abortion and capital punishment, both as a process and as a moral quandary. The latter is where all passion is to be found. We defend the positions most fervidly that we are uncertain about. Maybe this observation alone provides some evidence that morality is illusory.
You mean exactly which are we accessing or utilizing when making a choice - brain or mind? Good question. Does it depend on the context of the choice?
Both are ultimately interpretive and subjective – even ‘precise’ knowledge isn’t standardized beyond any subjective influence. The only real difference here is predictability. One is a scientific, medical procedure dealing with tangibility; whereas the other is nebulous and intangible [we have no means by which to measure morality, for instance].
This is exactly why I never cared for Rand. She never realized her own egocentric predicament and thus wound up positing perspectives as objectively ‘real’, rather than interpretations. I believe she could rationally explain her emotions, or those a man or woman might have in certain contexts, but likely had no real grasp of them if she thought them so predictable and mechanistic. Forcing reality to fit a human paradigm is, in my opinion, something of a capitulation.
I agree, and I think there is more, or less, to ‘determinism’ and the flux of reality than causality, as we know it. It’s funny that we can claim these logical formulations explain something that is, in all likelihood, illogical. Logic and rationality are better tools of description than explanation [that is to say we will understand more than we will ever discover by those utilities].
The only part I would edit is the end – “[…]describing something that seems objectively real to the subject.” Subjectivity, to me, is an individual’s specific interpretation of something. Therefore, I think that even objectivity is subjective to a degree.
I’m still unsure if any such ‘realities’ exist for all of us, universally.
It can be shown to be applicable to the physical world. I see objectivity as that which we can presume to exist independently of perception.
I mean there is so much to be uncertain of. So, rather than dwell in some nihilistic complacency, risk hypotheses about yourself and ‘reality’ as you experience them. Then, of course, test the shit out of them. Most great discoveries, especially in science, begin with speculation. In other words, take the risk of being wrong about your beliefs if they are important to you. It’s that, or sit on the fence your entire life and feel safe in your inability to disturb, nor contribute, anything.
All of those things are born of perception, of subjectivity. They only seem objective in their predictability, but we’ve created that too.
Not solipsism. Perspectivism, if anything.
Sure, but convincing is determined more by the salesman than the product.
Again, the difference here is in tangibility and predictability. We don’t have any real measurement of ethics. We also can not overtly determine a person’s ethical position based on appearances. You are taking that which seems tangible and predictable as sufficient enough to be considered objective. You are not alone in that view, but it is a pragmatic one. That position says more about you than it ever will about reality.
If a crucial choice must be made in the spur of the moment, the brain may well “transcend” the mind. More so than if it is choice we can mull over for days.
But the mystery remains. How does the brain “become” mind? Is mind matter? If so, does it reflect the brute facticity seemingly embedded in the “laws of nature”? But obviously it is completely unlike any other matter.
iambiguous wrote:
[i]In performing an abortion a doctor must have precise knowledge of human biology in order to do so correctly. And she can share this knowledge with any other doctor and they too can perform abortions rationally.
But in debating whether abortion is moral or immoral there is no exact exchange of knowledge. There are only opinions, personal prejudices, existential narratives. [/i]
When I differentiate the two I ask myself, "for all practical purposes, what’s the difference?" And for me it is that medical science becomes ever more increasingly sophisticated; and, as a result of this, abortions can be performed faster and safer.
Not so with abortion as an ethical quandary. We are no closer today to resolving the conflict than when the very first abortion was performed.
In performing abortions, a particular behavior is not just a point of view. It has to coincide with a reasonably objective understanding of human biology.
In legislating abortion, however, no one is necessarily the wiser.
This seems a reasonable distinction to me.
Some things unfold in a particular way and though each of us might describe it in our own unique manner there is still a general agreement such that we are basically describing the same thing. For example, one night we go to listen to a jazz quartet perform and the next night we go to listen to a symphony orchestra perform. We could clearly note both the similarities and the differences in the experience. But if the discussion shifts gears to whether classical music is better [or more fulfilling] than jazz [or rock or folk or gospel] the element of subjectivity increases substantially. And this is what I tend to focus on. What can we generally share in which there will be widespread agreement and what can’t we generally share because there might be widespread disagreement.
iambiguous wrote:
Something is objective when it transcends mere points of view and describes what is real for all of us. Even though some of us will, of course, insist it is otherwise.
There may not be a precise overlap of course but what seems important to me is the extent to which the gaps are significant. It is in these gaps where disagreements can lead to arguments can lead to out and out conflict.
I’m less inclined to accept this. Why? Because I believe right and wrong behavior can only be derived from the subjective vantage points of daseins—an exchange of narratives. At least with respect to behaviors that will be judged by others as moral or immoral. You can of course take calculated risks in pursuing a different career or a new relationship or a risky physical challenge. But these choices revolve more around competency [and luck] than beliefs. Or so it seems to me.
iambiguous wrote:
Knowledge of my name, my adddress, my telephone number, my social security number etc. is certainly objective enough for me.
Above you noted, “I see objectivity as that which we can presume to exist independently of perception.”
That is how I basically view things like addresses, phone numbers and SS numbers. I live in a particular house with this address. The telephone company and the SS administration issued me these specific [and unique] numbers. And this can be confirmed objectively by many. Even if all of us were to vanish tomorrow those things are [to me] substantively and substantially true. At least this is an important distinction I make. Compare the actual existence of a SS number assigned to me with the existence of a political conflict that revolves around whether social security should be expanded or contracted.
Technically, I may be wrong in how I view this distinction but, again, “out in the world” of human interaction, that is the most important distinction I can think to make.
iambiguous wrote:
[i]Where I make the distinction is between facets of our lives that are true for all and facets that not.
For example, I can provide detailed knowledge of how an execution is carried out. And my description will match precisely what is done step by step. But how do I do the same when the question shifts to, “is capital punishment ethical?”[/i]
Yes, you may well be right about that.
For the most part, what counts for me is how practical a point of view is out in the world of actual human interaction. I am not so much interested in understanding “logically” or “epistemologically” how one distinguishes subjective from objective truth or knowledge; rather I am interested in how we either can or cannot demonstrate definitively whether particular human behaviors/relationships are rational or irrational, ethical or unethical, just or unjust.
And, objectively, I don’t think we can.