I know that what ever happens after this life,
ill try my best to find the best way of doing things.
I know that I will try my best.
That’s all I can do.
We’re given an ego as a stage for individuality.
It’s a metamorphosis.
Inanimate matter, forming around a core.
All this is a stage. It’s part of a bigger process.
Nietzsche & Heidegger: Laminate or Separate?
Bill Cooke on the humanist value of Nietzsche.
Which is why, over and over and over again, I suggest that in regard to whatever is construed to be a premodern, modern or postmodern philosophical assessment of the “human condition”, it all must be brought down out of the theoretical “worlds of words” clouds and shown to be relevant to the lives that we actually live.
Instead, many will be more preoccupied with pinning down precisely which intellectual contraptions [here for example] are or are not analogous to Sokol’s own “postmodern” con job.
Okay, in regard to this intellectual contraption, bringing theoretical postmodernism down out of the clouds, how might Nietzsche and Heidegger be compared in regard to the flesh and blood historical Nazis? Starting for example with the fact that Nietzsche had died decades before the Nazis had come to power in Germany. And noting that in some ways Heidegger was right in the thick of it… having joined the Nazi party itself in the 1930s
Thus…
Here, of course, each of us will react to all this in different ways. And my point is not so much to explore what Nietzsche and Heidegger and you and I thought or think of Nazis and liberal democracy, but in how they and we came to think what they did and do given the manner in which I think as I do regarding the role that my dasein plays in the creation of an existential identity in the is/ought world re this thread.
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
That again.
Find yourself. Become yourself. Be yourself.
And how is that not the first step to becoming an objectivist? After all, in becoming yourself, that can only unfold out in a particular world historically and culturally. It can only involve a set of uniquely personal experiences that others may have no real grasp of at all. So, when you attempt to share your “true self” with others, why wouldn’t you expect there to be a “failure to communicate?”
Much as it unfolds over and over again right here. On the other hand, what is it that precipitates the vast majority of the conflicts in places like this. Of course: the parts that I focus in on.
Right, Mr. Objectivist?
All the more reason to quell the anxiety by doubling down on the particular font of choice. God or No God. Make your game the only game in town. And judge others by the extent to which they play the game by your rules. Or, perhaps, the rules of the Führer?
In the interim, however, the transition to becoming one’s True Self can involve confronting many conflicting One True Paths. So, of course, do your utmost to assure yourself that your own One True Path is the one that, say, all rational and virtuous men and women are, say, obligated to take?
There’s the path that he chose “out in the world” around him back then, and the one that you choose “out in the world” around you today.
This and the arguments that “I” make regarding those One True Paths.
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Then there is the manner in which I construe dasein here: existentially, subjectively, individuallly. It’s not just that each new day we are confronted with the possibility that, for whatever reason, “this is the day I die”, but also that down through the ages there have existed any number of “stories” that mere mortals have told themselves to make that inevitable reality less…dreadful? fearful? ghastly?
What narrative do you hold on to?
And then the beauty of these various reactions is that all we need do is to believe them. To have “faith”’ in them. Others may scoff at them, sure, but that doesn’t make your own comfort and consolation go away.
Things that philosophers say. Well, serious philosophers anyway.
How about you? Does this seem applicable in regard to your own thinking about death? Me, I’m far more inclined to sweep authenticity under the rug [as a pie in the sky intellectual contraption] and stick with the distractions: music, film, novels, the good stuff on TV.
That works for me. I never tire of wrenching myself away from “them”. Indeed, the farther away from the maddening crowd the better, I always say. Though I’m not entirely sure what to make of the fact that I still keep coming here. But I’m working on it.
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Yes, there are likely to be any number of people who are able to face their own existential death in such a manner. And you may well be one of them. Depending in large part on the extent to which you are able to think yourself into believing that there is something — anything? – beyond the grave.
On the other hand, I don’t suspect that I will be able to myself. Either I will still be confronting all of the things that make life worth living and succumb to despair, or my life will devolve into a cesspool of physical suffering and I will choose death myself in order to end it.
Still, what remains most crucial here is the part embedded in dasein. There are so many different lives that we can live in accumulating so many different sets of experiences, involving so many different sets of options, that there are certainly going to be many instances in which a “failure to communicate” one’s own frame of mind to others about death will never be bridged.
Also, the fact that philosophers are no more capable of acquiring wisdom here than others.
Or are you not convinced of that?
And then the part back then where millions of Germans lost themselves in the “they-self” that was embraced by the Nazis. And, as a result of that, how many Jews came face to face “with the possibility of being itself” in embracing “an impassioned freedom towards death” in the gas chambers?
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
What could possibly be clearer? Now all we need do [as philosophers] is to think that through thoroughly and factor it into our actual existential deaths. Then we can reconvene and exchange our own subjective assessments regarding the most rational manner in which mere mortals in Martin Heidegger’s No God world can go about living the most authentic lives on this side of the grave.
And thus avoiding this:
Now, admittedly, when it comes to living authentically “here and now” on this side of the grave, we seem unable to actually pin down what that entails in terms of behaviors either prescribed or proscribed. Instead, down through the ages, both morally and politically, living rational, authentic, coherent, astute, intelligent, etc., lives precipitate all manner of fierce conflicts.
But then those who insist that, philosophically, in a world sans God, objective/authentic lives are still within reach. Why? Because, in fact, they have already discovered what living this life entails.
Then the part where some include “or else”.
Then the arguments that “I” make.
My response is a bit rambling. Feel no obligation to read or respond.
It’s a gesture and also me clarifying some of my own thoughts.
[tab]
IMO
There is utility to the fear / aversion of death.
There’s very good reason why it evolved.
It is a feeling, like any other feeling.
A question one could ask,
to what extent should one feed an emotion?
Somewhere along that spectrum of degrees,
there is an area where an emotion can become debilitating.
Where it’s utility is diminished, and becomes detrimental.
Any fear can fall into this, especially of death.
If we set aside our emotion,
and consider what death is -
there is no reason to fear being dead,
as one never experiences it.
What one is left to make peace with,
is living in the face of one’s mortality (and that of others),
and bearing the process of dying.
This is what we experience.
Because we feel something,
doesn’t make it wise or true.
A feeling can lead us astray or cloud our judgement.
At least personally,
I occassionally must actively seek to fight against existential dread.
I feel it at times, but I don’t think it’s wise or true.
I think it’s my feelings rendering me vulnerable or apprehensive.
What use is an instinct triggering an alarm for the unavoidable?
There is no action to resolve death.
To me it seems wiser to channel that energy towards things one can influence.
Our instincts can scream a great many things -
but we can use rationality to reign them in,
to not let them control us or lead us astray.
I think it’s so deeply written into us,
that many will never escape it’s clutches,
but it’s a cost to being greatly aware.
But there are methods we can minimize the cost,
without any magical thinking -
we can disect ourselves,
hone in on our emotions and defang them (if we see fit).
This is what we can do with rationality and reason.
And if we can’t, we can at least rub balm on the wounds,
and practice pain management techniques -
recognizing the bites are the body fighting phantoms.
I, like you, also enjoy art in many of it’s forms.
I don’t consider it a distraction, but an experience.
I experience the expression of others in response to their reality.
I find this deeply meaningful and that it brings more warmth into my own life.
As I reflect on my mortality, I think one of my greatest priviledges was to experience the art of humanity.
How in response to the human condition, we can create beauty - powerful and moving things.
I suppose I don’t consider them an escape,
but really special milestones along the journey.
( Of course, art that resonates with one )
I don’t think it’s necessary to hold any beliefs of something more beyond death.
The classic ‘dead is dead. that’s it.’, doesn’t exclude catching one’s stride in life.
In my experience, to make peace with death - with loss -, frees one to give energy to that which one values with confidence.
I know what I’m doing and why I’m doing it, and recognize my time is limited, so I need not throw it into endeavours which I think unwise.
There is clarity which comes from allowing big things like death, to shed the unnecessities of one’s life.
What are the expectations and judgements of another when one is dead?
Why walk a path in their vision, than in one’s own vision?
As are we not all capable of envisioning our meaning?
There may be things in your life that are taking a toll on you. This was true for me, many which escaped my awareness.
As the sayings go, all the little moments we have in life - are really where the meaning comes from.
I don’t think there’s any great revelations or world altering events that are expected to happen.
It’s about being able to live the day to day, and say, this is worthwhile.
That to experience existence, through this lens of humanity - good & bad alike - is a valuable thing.
You’ve likely already been doing it, but have doubted and critiqued yourself after the fact - to minimize / tarnish the experiences.
I wonder what you mean by ‘confronting’ in regards to things that make life worth living. Investigating? Questioning? Testing? Understanding? Processing?
Must worthwhile things be confronted? To what end? Or is it a habitual response?
(Again, you need not respond - I’m throwing these questions / thoughts out there)[/tab]
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
You tell me:
In regard to death and dying, is this or is this not “a general description intellectual contraption”?
Yes, we can all read these words. And we all have a general understanding of what they mean. Aside from Dasein, most don’t have to got to a dictionary and look the words up. And, even in regard to Dasein, there might well be a general consensus regarding how Heidegger links the word to death philosophically.
On the other end, what do those words mean to you in regard to your actual existential death? And, if they mean something very different to me, how would we go about, using the tools of philosophy, in arriving at the most rational understanding of them?
Same thing. What happens when any particular individual’s lifelong deliberation on their own mortality results in their behaving in such a manner that it actually puts in jeopardy life itself for others. As, for example, in regard to religious conflicts or clashes between political ideologies.
At times, such deliberations can indeed enrich our lives. But, at other times, bring us little but despair. That’s all rooted existentially in my own rendition of dasein.
Then back up into the philosophical clouds…
Given any particular context, your rendition of an authentic life or mine? Ours or theirs? Being authentic philosophically or existentially?
Of course, for many who are unable to believe in God, that brings them to another quandary:
They know they have but one life to live. So, yes, by all means live it to the fullest. But for any number of individuals that revolves around behaviors that actually risk death itself. Racecar drivers, mercenaries, thrill seekers, daredevils.
The idea of death then? Or, instead, is it something considerably more problematic…more in sync with my own understanding of dasein.
I didn’t know women could pfilozofhize
Philistine!
Not many do philosophise, so only a few philosophise… regardless of gender.
Well if 99% of philosophers are male, then being a philosopher isn’t “regardless of gender” now is it?
_
Where did you get that number from… published philosophers?
Being a philosopher, doesn’t mean a good philosopher…
So you legit think more than 1/100 of good philosophers were women?
Also i will ask you the same question as magnustard… why do you hide your online status? I am legit curious.
That’s not what I said.
Where did you get that number from… published philosophers?
…then stay curious… 
I got that number from the fact that I have never read any good philosophy from a woman, but lots from males. Published and known or not. If you think differently that ok, I am asking you about it.
Fair enough. I just don’t understand “hiding” your online status and then… posting. At the same time. Seems weirdly irrational.
In my experience women are pretty irrational compared to men. Again, feel free to disagree, I don’t care either way. My experiences speak for themselves.
Which is nothing against women of course. Maybe women do not need philosophy. That might be considered a blessing.
I think the subject-matter that females settle-on writing about, is at the heart of their poor philosophical offerings.
If that is all they’ve got in them to offer, then yea… it’s a poor show.
Care to share whose works you have read, that have impressed you?