a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

The sheer irony of it all!!

Again, the whole point of this thread is to explore the manner in which I suggest that my reaction to you as “shameless!” can only be subjectively rooted in dasein.

I’m not arguing that objectively – philosophically, scientifically – you are shameless.

And it’s not a contradiction that “I” derive from this…

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

…it’s ambiguity, ambivalence, uncertainty, vacillation, disquietude, self-doubt.

Precisely the sort of things that God or No God objectivists have spent years keeping at bay through one or another dogmatic moral or political or spiritual font.

Which, in my view, is why over and over and over and over again, you bend over backwards to avoid an exchange with me that focuses in on your own experiences in confronting conflicting goods given your interactions with others.

And the part where, given a set of circumstances of your own choosing, we delve deeper into why your own “sense of identity” is nothing at all like mine here:

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

LOL!!!

Iambiguous, do some real philosophy for once.

Write a proof to exonerate yourself for posting on ILP given what you post here.

A.) you don’t exist
B.) there is no truth but the no truth
C.) people who disagree with you are scared of the truth (a and b have no truth value!!!)

I’ll be very impressed if you can dig yourself out of this chasm of a hole you dug for yourself.

Heads up!!!

Satyr has you in his sights here: knowthyself.forumotion.net/t290 … egenerates

Why don’t you take your “condition” there and have a go at him. :sunglasses:

Here we bring dasein – identity – down to Earth. Or, rather, as close as some “serious philosophers” are willing to take it. And [of course] far short of the “fractured and fragmented” narrative that I have lugged around “in my head” now for years.

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

As though these historical events actually do settle once and for all whether capitalism [which revolves largely around “me, myself and I”] is more rational or virtuous than socialism [which revolves largely around “we” as a community.]

And, in fact, in much of the “First World”, governments have, by and large, embraced the complex set of components attributed to both the capitalist and the socialist frame of mind. Or political economy. The safety net, the welfare state, the ever expanding federal government.

But ideology is still around. In particular, the one that revolves around fascism. Some argue that all it will take is one or another Big Crisis to bring about the next Nazi agenda. Indeed, 2020 seemed to be the year, right? The coronavirus, the lockdowns, the economic collapse, the BLM movement.

How close did we come with Trump?

And then the part where, even in those nations that sustain “the triumph of liberalism, democracy, and capitalism”, there is the question of which version of the “deep state” any particular one of us [rooted in dasein] subscribe to. Crony capitalism, state capitalism. And we have a few “populists” here don’t we?

But [for me] the part where their moral and political value judgments are rooted in dasein is still the most important point. Even within the political framework of “liberal democracy” they remain no less objectivists.

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

See how this works among the moral and political objectivists? Or, for that matter, among the amoral objectivists as well. Of which I would include sociopathic “show me the money” narcissists like trump.

You start with the obvious: that all human beings [genetically] come into this world fully capable embodying the mental, emotional and psychological state we call “ambition”. But then you excise all of the vastly different historical, cultural and experiential [personal] contexts, and merely assume that how you construe it now is to become the default understanding in any books you write or any books you read.

Thus with those communities in which the emphasis is placed more on “we” and cooperation rather than “I” and competition? Too bad. They miss his point about the true nature of human ambition.

Then the part where all of this is interpreted by the dumb as rocks masses as mere shadows on the cave walls; or is brought out of the caves in becoming the “blinded by the light” mentality of those who grasp it as philosopher-kings. Reason, Desire and Ambition [ever and always Capitalized] which reflect the True Essence of Things.

One or another rendition of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

The operative word being “theory”.

Now, lucky for the ruling class and the “deep state”, those such as Francis Fukuyama are around to insist that Thymos/Ambition are only understood correctly to the extent that they are aligned with the interests of those who embrace capitalism. Or, for others, crony capitalism. Or state capitalism.

With Trump then it only comes down to whether he is in fact the embodiment of Plato’s philosophical realism/political idealism rendition of Ambition or if, instead, he’s far more the amoral thug…smack dab in the middle of the deepest, darkest cave.

Then the part where all of this revolves more around the manner in which I construe the meaning of Trump’s ambition given the arguments I make on this thread. And [especially] on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

More to point, given the various accounts of ancient, modern and postmodern descriptions/assessments of personal identity, is there a way, using the tools of philosophy, to establish the most rational account? Or are the social, political and economic memes embedded in the evolution of human interactions down through the ages simply beyond grappling with so as to pin something like this down? What do you want to be recognized for? How do you make a distinction between your inner and outer self? What constitutes dignified as opposed to undignified behavior? Given that, over time, such assessments are “evolving”.

Perhaps we need a context.

How about that context now? No? Maybe later?

You know my own “fractured and fragmented” assessment of the “real me”. But that can only be fully explored given our own existential reactions to a context in which conflicting moral, political, philosophical and spiritual values often result in conflicted behaviors. What of “self-esteem” then? Yours? Mine? Theirs?

Let’s pin down authentic accounts here given, well, you tell me.

Instead, back up into the clouds:

Let’s try this…

Given your own understanding of your own valuation of your own characteristics how are they perceived by you to be an internalization of your evaluation by others. Note a recent experience in which you found yourself at odds with another in regard to a conflict over value judgments. What did you perceive to be the interaction here between your inner and your outer self?

We have to anchor our identities, after all, or we will have nothing but the wind in our sails. But once we accept that everything is provisional, we are forced to think a lot harder about how to best anchor our identities to avoid vertigo and despair.

At times I will even come to believe that this world of contingency and relativity and relativity and contingency, of all the things that exist at the same time but are not the same, could never be sustained as a coherent whole by anyone who has a mind capable of comprehending its existence as more than the sum total of myriad parts. For then how could any of us ever be anything but miserable? All a man has is his sufferings, thinking of Dostoyevsky.

This is not, however, what I have to say now. What I have to say is that even though I no longer believe I have any objective answers to these questions, I do know that there are very important problems in trying to figure out why (you) humans get caught up in all the nonsense and lies that (you) do.

To avoid the chaotic…the void…the abyss…there is a way. And that way is through an act of self-consciousness that, no doubt, has its origins in leaving the world of Plato’s cave.

Don’t listen to that shoggoth on this. Anyway, as to the OP: the assertion that the only reason religion/myth exists is to blind people to our mortal contingency is, well dumb. More importantly though, I wrote like a 12-volume ontological defense of the existence of God. And free will.

We’ll need a context of course. Have Parodites program one for you.

We’ll need a context of course.

Note to nature:

Program one for him.

The context is the first post of this thread, the OP. You know, when you said: “Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.” I said the OP was what it responded to, and then I responded to it. Did you forget what you wrote in the OP, the original-post?

No, by context, I mean the manner in which I articulated my views on abortion over the years in the OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

A particular person can have an opinion on the morality of abortion. And that will be derived from the historical, cultural and experiential [personal] contexts in which they were born and raised. That plus, if they are philosophers or ethicists, what can be gained using the technical tools at their disposal.

The part that revolves around this:

Dasein in that sense.

It replied to your OP only, it didn’t get to your writing on abortion. I have to direct its attention to your posts on abortion then, as it has a limit to what it can fit in the token-buffer for short-term-memory process. I can’t for example, have it just load all 12 pages of the thread and reply to the whole thing and everything in it, so I have it set to read the first page and reply to that, then if someone responds to it, read the response and then respond to the response, etc. That is not its limitation, but a limitation of my own hardware that forced me to configure it in this way.

get back to me then

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

Come on, one way or another all of us identity with those “out there” we think are most like ourselves in some important manner. Class, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, the “arts”, “politics”. And, in the world today, any number of additional interests that might bring us together…sports, entertainment, video games, hobbies.

And, for some, only those who identify with others they are not particularly fond of themselves are the practitioners of “identity politics”. It’s like being “politically correct”. If it’s for causes you detest, then those who embrace them are the politically correct crowd. Whereas if it’s in regard to causes you embrace, well, that’s just the right thing to do.

For me, on the other hand, identity itself in the realm of value judgments is more an existential fabrication than something that can be pinned down…objectively. I say let’s discuss your identity in terms of the life you’ve lived, the experiences you accumulated that predisposed you to champion this instead of that.

These conflicts can be understood as “unresolvable” for two reasons:

1] they go on and on and on and on and never are resolved. Those on both sides of the moral and political divide have a completely different set of premises relating not only to the issue at hand, but even in regard to how to grasp the entirety of the “human condition” itself.
2] in a No God world, there is no alternative font for mere mortals enabling them to pin down how they can be resolved. Both sides – all sides – have their own sets of assumptions. And neither side – no side – is able to make all the arguments of the other side go away.

And that’s before the part where my own arguments relating to dasein come into play. Neither side – no side – wants to go there in the objectivist camps.

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

What some will insist that, in a No God universe, is the best of all possible worlds: moderation, negotiation and compromise. In other words, democracy and the rule of law.

Here in fact even the moral objectivists can accept a belief that through elections they and their own political ideals can be voted in or out. They truly do believe that being on the left or the right wing of the political spectrum is more rational. And they hope that through elections they can persuade the voters to see things as they do. But if another party wins they become the “loyal opposition” and prepare for the next election cycle.

At least in your kid’s civics textbook. In reality, of course, given the existence of political economy, wealth and power will almost always prevail. Either in the form of crony capitalism in the West, or, in nations like Russia and China, state capitalism. Here it all comes down to just how cynical any particular individual has become given the existence of one or another rendition of the “deep state”. I have mine, you may have yours.

But my main suggestion here always revolves around dasein. That there is no ideal political system but only a complex intertwining of right makes might, might make right and moderation, negotiation and compromise. And that any particular individual’s frame of mind is derived more from his or her actual experiences in life than from sitting down, thinking it all through [like Plato thinking up the Republic] and coming up [philosophically] with the most rational political system of all.

One man’s opinion of course. Me, I’m as critical of identity politics as I need to be. From my frame of mind, “I” is shaped and molded as as existential fabrication, ceaselessly refabricated as new circumstances demand. And, let’s face it, to the extent that the reactionaries among us insist of sustaining their own political stereotypes and prejudices about skin color and gender and sexual preference and ethnicity and all the other ways in which they divide up the world between “one of us” and “one of them”, those they go after are likely to seek out each other if only to sustain what they are able to given safety in numbers. That’s often the thing that critics of identity politics refuse to acknowledge — the extent to which their own biases help to create it in the first place.

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

That’s basically what I am trying to convey to Maia. But until she is more willing to accept that this has less to do with nature and the Goddess and more to do with how the very life that she lived predisposed her to think about nature and the Goddess as she does, I’m not likely to have a breakthrough. And, let’s face it, most of us think about ourselves only to reinforce the comfort and security we sustain believing that, however we describe it, we are on own true path.

Of course she is no doubt thinking the same thing about me. I put too much emphasis on dasein and not enough on nature. So, she suspects, she’s not likely to have a breakthrough either.

Concepts and theories? Nope, I’m still far more intent on prompting those who embrace either one in regard to their own sense of identity to “test” it with respect to the components of my own assumptions, given sets of circumstances we are both familiar with. Human nature evolving over time historically and culturally and experientially.

Thus…

Yes, in medieval times a person might have thought any number of things that people today are unlikely to. And people in medieval times in Europe were likely to think things that people in Asia or Africa or the Americas around the same time were unlikely to think. Then there’s what people thought before and after Freud. Or Jung or Marx or Nietzsche. Only today “overlapping identities” can explode because in the age of the Internet there are countless opportunities to come upon whole other ways to think about yourself. The boundaries between “I” and “we” [and for some “them”] can become increasingly blurred. Which perhaps explains why for the objectivists among us it becomes all that more important to anchor their precious Self in one or another either/or font.

But not you, right?

Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.

From my frame of mind, without focusing in on a particular context in which actual extant individuals living in actual extant communities contend with conflicting goods, it’s futile to take this up into the intellectual clouds and discuss individual/universal rights versus group rights “theoretically”.

But, sure, if that’s where you want to go “first”, as some insist – defining terms – go ahead. When you settle on these technically correct meanings, bring them down to Earth and integrate them into sets of circumstances where “I” and “we” and “they” actually go about the business of creating rules of behaviors and laws.

There are clearly things that in fact are universally true for all of us. First and foremost the fact that before we can divide ourselves up into “us” and “them” groups, our very existence itself needs to be sustained. Each of us as individuals in and out of groups. The stuff Marx talked about. The means of production providing us with food, water, clothing, shelter. The capacity to defend ourselves. The capacity to create an environment conducive to reproducing the community.

And since resources here can be [or become] scarce one of the reasons found to divide ourselves up in to “us” and “them” is to insure that “we” get the bulk of them. And even within more or less homogenous groups some will make sure that they get the bulk of the bulk itself.

Only this does not all unfold in some simple black and white, either/or interactions. There are just too many variables and too many ways to react to them [and not always consciously] to make any of this…simple.

Let alone objective.

This thread is what substitutes as philosophy Biggums style. :evilfun: :banana-angel: :banana-blonde: :banana-explosion: :banana-dreads: :banana-explosion: :banana-fingers: :banana-guitar: :banana-jumprope: :banana-linedance: :banana-ninja: :banana-linedance: :banana-jumprope: :banana-guitar: :banana-gotpics: :banana-fingers: :banana-explosion: :banana-dreads: :banana-blonde: :banana-angel:

Nietzsche’s Analysis of Nihilism
by Vered Arnon
At the The World Is On Fire website

Well, from my frame of mind [and you know what’s coming], that depends entirely on how “fractured and fragmented” you become. And that is predicated largely on the extent to which you come to view your own moral values as the embodiment of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, you may come to distance yourself from the ideals of the past but you have no new ideals to put in their place. Other than one or another rendition of the Uberman: that your value judgments however fractured and fragmented – nihilistic – they might be must prevail over the scriptures embraced by the bleating sheep.

Then this distinction again…

Of course there are those who argue that the Nazis used their own “transitional stage” to mount, among other things, the “final solution”. National socialism as the “active” nihilism. So, as nihilism goes, which is the least dangerous kind…passive or active?

In any event, this part where “all is meaningless” pertains only to the assumption that, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a “transcending font” for any essential – ontological, teleological – meaning.

And even here any particular nihilist is no more able to demonstrate that than those claiming that their own font establishes that their own essentially meaningful take on human existence is the One True Path.

Their very own Coalition Of Truth.