bro the shit you say makes zero sense, you accused satire from shitthyself of running like a chickenshit…here i am…define dasein and stop being a chickenshit bro…
Morality has to be qualified and when qualified as something that is an individual characteristic, it needs to be qualified further, and then it is not something that ‘IS’ because we are not speaking of something scientific, measurable by a scientific method, and definable concretely but a philosophical problem. You cant use words like morality or dasein or nature or evolution and not specify what you meant by them exactly. Another thing…with all the kooks giving their own definitions of dasein…without one snippet of reference to Heidegger(who invented, defined the word and the concept)…just insane dullards…shows who is who…if you are giving some other definition with minimal reference to Heidegger’s definition then you are either not understanding Heidegger who you claim to understand or are so insane, you take concepts of other people and modify them freely for some bizarre reason as if it helped anybody and did not make you look like a confused and pretentious clown. dasein is WHAT Heidegger defined it to be because he is the sole inventor of the word(he is not actually because he stole it and re-made it but ok…) and the concept and it is neither a common-place word or a popular philosophical/scientific concept that is arguable.
Nonsensical garbage that makes no sense. He is writing about dasein as if he has no clue what it is himself and is second-guessing a term he cant even define in the first place…dasein isn’t this, it isn’t that…its relation is this but it isn’t that…what the fuck is this shit even about??? plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiWor
in this article, dasein is quoted almost 300 times AND YET…NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF WHAT DASEIN IS, IS ACTUALLY PROVIDED!!!…go figure…ridiculous…
i dont have to answer that question because i almost drowned once trying to save a friend drowning in a river. the guy walked in a river section which was shallow up to his neck to show how tall he is(6.4±) and then that section had a steep drop due to a very strong current and my friend slipped and felt into the deep water and the strong current and I was the first one out of my friends to immediately react(and only one out of all the people on that beach to get into water) and move to help him…he grabbed me like every drowning idiot does and pulled me into the current himself so I kicked him away and punched his face and when he let go of me I pulled back and grabbed his hand and pulled him out of the deep water…I was never violent and ferocious(and still I am not) but I am not a coward and if things go bad I always pick up the initiative instead of freezing or going crazy…what about you???you ever put your neck on the line for somebody in the high and noble spirit of a volunteer???you ever stood up for your children???you ever pushed through pain to care for your children whilst very ill???you ever managed to stay merry and welcoming despite not sleeping for 2 days???
Something I wrote…
so, is slaughter of children fine based on dasein or your objectives???lets not blow smoke up asses and hide behind word-salads and get to the point…lets see an idiot say slaughter of children is perfectly fine because it happens in nature(???) and the only premise needed is an objective which authorizes such acts or a particular context…
The Death of Morality
Moral Fictionalism
Richard Joyce on what happens when falsehoods are too useful to throw out.
It’s important of course to include the word “theorist” here. After all, it’s one thing for David to argue that in theory punching babies is not immoral, and another thing altogether to defend that frame of mind in an actual community of human beings.
He might actually believe that “theoretically” in, say, a No God world, any and all behaviors can be rationalized given the assumption that “in the absence of God all things are permitted”. But how foolish might he be to state that in, say, your own community? Let alone punch a baby and try to defend it.
So…
Okay, so what if David, for whatever personal reason, has talked himself into believing that punching – even killing – one particular baby is justified. Perhaps the parents of the baby were responsible for the death of his own baby. Perhaps he is a complete sociopath and simply wants to know what such an experience would be like. My point is that in the absence of God there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to establish deontologically – necessarily – that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to refrain from punching or killing a baby.
That’s the world we live in if a transcending font cannot be established — secular or sacred.
And for those who are appalled at the very thought of killing a baby what of the arguments coming from the pro-life camp: that aborting the unborn is no less morally egregious.
A man that kills the baby is moral…you are confusing yourself…morality = ‘‘principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour’’, also: actions are not exactly identical to your morality…and the big struggle is to distinguish simple utilitarianism from morality, ie. Kant. By saying:
, you are already limiting the discussion to utilitarianism since you meddle reputation and reception and judgment(utilitarian motifs) with moral distinctions(wrong/right, what ought to be done, what not) which then becomes a problem of distinguishing between intentions and outcomes and potential since morality is not the only personal force that impacts the final outcome.
As an example: in the Nazi German camps for the Russian prisoners of war where millions of young Slavic were starved, cannibalism was rare and many chose certain death to cannibalism on the dead corpses…why??? did they need God to decide???did they need ILP and a cable???a time to think it through???some chose to die and not eat, some ate…if morality was a question of utilitarianism only they would all eat…and where in the Bible does it say one should not eat dead whilst starving to death in a concentration camp run by insane Germans loosing their shit over a failing war effort??? would YOU rather eat your dead friend or fall dead without cannibalizing him???
let the poison flow out of you…you are what you are. you make mistakes, like the kook SATIRE or his homosexual buddy KVASIRE does…if you are gonna play the ignore game…the superior indifferent game…make sure you dont make it evident you get mad and heated and barely contain yourself everytime you are reminded of me…otherwise…your facade becomes permanently dismantled…you ignored me for some time…could I be sure you dont give a shit or pretending???or course not…well…now I can be sure because you just proved it you old moron…well done!!!thanks for playing on my side buddy!!! say hi to SATIRE when you have a SPARTAN sleepover again!!!putblugs will be broken, dildos will be broken, AUHHHUUUUUU!!!
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
How about this:
We note a context that most of us here will be familiar with. A set of circumstances in which different individuals espouse a particular ethical philosophy that comes into conflict with the ethical philosophy of others.
And, then, as the discussion unfolds, we focus in on what it means to speak of the boundaries of language. Does it more or less revolve around Wittgenstein’s conjecture that, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”?
Of course given the actual reality of human interactions it makes no difference at all if this is true. After all, try interacting with others such that no one finds it necessary to speak of conflicting goods.
Instead, for me, it revolves more around the quandary of embodying a “fractured and fragmented” “I” in the is/ought world, and having no way in which to make it otherwise.
Here on the other hand it’s not so much about the boundaries or the limitations of language but language used to discuss something in which only language itself is ever really broached. Words defining and defending still more words…as though actual conflicting human interactions over value judgments is something not even worth mentioning. This, in my view, in regard to morality, can quickly become intellectual gibberish of the highest order. The stuff Of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.
Expressions corresponding or not corresponding to what one actually means about…what?
Wittgenstein was right in that he was making a giant breakthrough since he was the first(Cambridge or Oxford circles which he joined early but also some continental like the Warsaw-Lviv school who also picked it up) to begin to apply modern mathematical logic(developed by Russel and Frege) to philosophy but Wittgenstein was also an unstable cunt with weak personality so Id not take much of the private stuff he said seriously; Newtonian physics is not naive or simplistic or useless just because of Einstein.
