Allow me please to make one more attempt at explaining why Pedro does not grasp the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in regard to particular answers that one might give to particular questions.
If the question is, “who now occupies the Oval Office as president of the United States”? and John says Joe Biden and Jim says Donald Trump and Jane says Hillary Clinton and Jean says Barack Obama, I would not argue it “all works out” if we agree to accept that all of us as individuals are allowed to have our own answers to questions like this. Our own private, personal answers to questions that revolve around actual empirical facts, or mathematics, or the laws of nature or the rules of logic.
Imagine human interactions if that were the case?!
Imagine instead, however, that the question is, “Is Joe Biden doing a good job in the Oval Office as president of the United States?”
Jim, a strong supporter of Trump, says he is doing a terrible job on all the issues. John, an old school Republican, says that over all he is doing a poor job on most issues. Jane a progressive Democrat says he is not liberal enough on most issues. Jean a moderate Democrat says he goes too far to the left on many issues.
Now, what I focus on here in regard to dasein is in distinguishing an individual’s value judgments relating to Biden’s performance in the White House as the embodiment of the life that they lived in accumulating experiences that predisposed them to come down existentially on the political spectrum in one spot rather than another.
This as opposed to the idea that if someone truly does think through Biden’s job performance rationally as a philosopher or as an ethicist or as a political scientist they can arrive at an objective assessment about him. No dasein. Only in fact what is true about him and the choices he makes in regard to the policies he pursues.
And then those like me who, in being no less the embodiment of dasein, have come to think themselves into believing that Joe Biden himself is the embodiment of this frame of mind: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … s#p2187045
I understand the premise of the op in question,
and I would just add, if I may, the point that is, why
these values and beliefs and not others…
why do I hold that Obama was a center right politician,
why that belief instead of a conservative’s believe that
Obama was a “leftist radical”… which he clearly wasn’t…
I hold that our beliefs and values come down to epistemology,
the question of knowledge… how do I know what I know?
do I use, as IAM does, the question of being/dasein, as my
guiding line/light, in informing me as to the range of, the scope
of my knowledge? Do I see all decisions/values as being
part of “Dasein” or do I use another value/understanding to make
sense of my belief that Obama was a center-right politician…
how do I justify my own beliefs? and how can I be sure of my own
"knowledge or belief that Obama was a center-right politician?
what standards do I use to justify my own beliefs?
and by standards, I mean, knowledge…
Dasein is but one means or way to understand the knowledge I have,
but do I use ‘‘Dasein’’ as Heidegger used it, as jut a substitute for
the word “god”, for every time Heidegger used Being/Dasein, it was
a replacement for the word “god”… being/Dasein meant god
for Heidegger… but I don’t believe, there is that word again,
that IAM uses the word, Dasein/being as a substitute for the word
“god” as Heidegger did…
so what is the “essential” point or aspect of “being?”
what is the “essential” aspect/point of “Dasein?”
and why that aspect/point and not another…
Your position boils down to “and about your personal opinions, I don’t give a fuck.”
That’s fine.
But here, in the realm of opinions beyond the facts of war, we can be given to discussing the niceties of the inconsequential.
For example, your rhetorical position v your actual position, and how they both draw a picture or not of a pathology
Your actual position: communist. We can agree on that.
Your rhetorical position: dasein existentialist. Ah. Here we have something to dig our teeth into.
What does this (rhetorical) position entail? An infranqueable contradiction: that no intellectual position is tenable. But this, of course, is an intellectual position. And, when push comes to shove, you do come down one way or another on specific issues, like abortion: not only must it be allowed, but government resources must be utilized in promoting it. More interestingly, the position has a name: dasein. Now, dasein is literally a position proposed by a famous intellectual.
So, the anti-intellectualist holds an intellectualist position. That the position itself holds that no intellectual position can be held, does not change the fact that it itself is an intellectual position, a position arrived at intellectually.
But here is the truly interesting part: why? Why even bother? Why the disinformation campaign?
Aside from its obvious political uses, essentially to convince anybody without a strong intellectual backbone that it is useless to think about anything and better to go with the (communist) flow, because it’s not like ilp is a hotbed of opinion-making for the world, we can perhaps find a pathological explanation.
So you are an intellectualist. This has been established. And your position is communism. But communism is one of the trashiest, most easily destructible intellectual positions ever created. It is so full of holes and idiocies that any high-schooler can show you what is wrong with it, if he dedicates 5 or 10 good minutes to it. Ah, but you are no idiot, and you still hold to it. Why? Obviously it cannot be its intellectual worth, which is as close to zero as a university graduate has produced. It is, of course, a pre-intellectual pathological need. Communism checks many boxes: belonging, destruction of the self, a self which is disliked, revenge. These are not rational feelings, you do belong to several layers of several groups, you do like yourself, there is nobody attacking you. But, at some point along the line, something very heavy triggered those feelings, and communism was readily available as an instant response. Being a fairly smart guy and trained thinker, you see, clearly, the poor quality of its value. But it is far more important to you than any intellectual accomplishment, not rationally, but pathologically. So you concoct a riddle. The purpose of this riddle is for the fact of this intellectual inconsistency, and the feeling of weakness it was conjured to address, to not be looked at. Thus, the riddle cannot be solvable. If it is solvable, the original problem must, or will, again be looked at. The original problem has already been solved in the pathological mind, you know the actual worth of communism intellectually, and you know the feeling of weakness it addresses. There is nothing there to solve, either, for the opposite reason. It is for this reason that the riddle, the position, the dasein, is evidently self-contradicting. This structural self-contradiction is what will guarantee its insolvability. Some additional resources will be taken to in order to keep it operational, like heavy insulting of anybody that starts grabbing on to the contradictory aspect, so that in making it about the relative personal worths of each, the problem of the contradiction can hopefully be made to fade into the background. It is never tricky, never difficult, for there is no actual riddle. If the contradiction is approached, anything can be used to fend off, there is no actual path within it back to the contradiction.
[quote=“Pedro I Rengel”]
[attachment=0]poorza.png[/attachment]
K: and look at the thread themselves… one on the political, one
on the philosophical, one is religious and one is about existence itself…
think about it… I started 4 different threads about 4 different things…
Your threads have a sameness to them that is unmistakable… one thread
looks the exact same as any other thread… your thread and posts,
are interchangeable… you could put them in any thread and no one
would notice the difference because there is no difference between them…
I prefer “to boldly go where no man has gone before”
instead of doing what you do, which is trod over well used grounds…
I seek out that which is different… and that is the difference between us,
I seek out the less worn path…
and you seek to bore us to death with the exact same trivial crap every single
time…
K: people are already fracture and fragmented… they just don’t know it…
That is why I believe IAM is the best philosopher on the board, because
he forces us to engage with that aspect of our existence…
No, my position is that in regard to such questions as “who now occupies the Oval Office?”, someone can say I don’t give a fuck what what anyone’s answer is, that it’s all just a bunch of “personal opinions”, but sans sim world and dream worlds and solipsism and matrixes, it isn’t just a matter of personal opinion, it’s a fact that Joe Biden is the only rational answer.
On the other hand, the moral and political objectivists among us insist that unless you answer the question “is Biden doing a good job overall in the Oval Office?” as they do, you’re not really entitled to your own opinion. You are flat out wrong because they are flat out right.
Knock on the door of their various Coalitions of Truth here and ask them.
Note to others:
See what I mean? My actual posiition is that of a Communist. And he and I and you must agree on that as an objective fact and not just a personal opinion.
See how these minds work?
And this has what to do with the distinction I make between Biden being president and Biden being a good president above?
On the the contrary, I recognize that my frame of mind in regard to abortion is rooted in the points I make on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
That my value judgment here is just a political prejudice derived from the trajectory of the life I lived. And that those on the other side of the political spectrum make arguments every bit as rational as my own. Merely starting with different sets of assumptions in regard to what is more important, the rights of the unborn or the rights of the women dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
And that it does not appear that theologians or philosophers or ethicists or political scientists or the scientific community is able to come up with either the optimal resolution to the abortion wars or the only rational resolution of them all.
Though that is not to say that there isn’t an objective solution to be found, only that I am not cognizant of it myself “here and now”.
Yes, given a free will world, I use my accumulated intelligence to argue the points I make in my signature threads regarding “I” in the is/ought world. But over and again in regard to things like abortion I bring the intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual flesh and blood abortions. Personal experiences and the issue as it comes up “on the news”.
The moral nihilist that I am bothers about these things because I still choose to interact with others. If only by and large virtually now. And when you interact with others there are going to be conflicting goods. This particular venue was created as a platform to discuss them.
As for my frame of mind being a “disinformation campaign”, in what sense? Specifics please. Relating either to abortion, Biden in the White House or any other context.
As for this…
Same thing. What on earth does this have to do with the context I chose above in the OP? With differentiating objective answers connected to the either/or world and personal opinions rooted subjectively in dasein connected to the is/ought world?
Instead [it seems] we are all just expected to accept this this…
…is not just a matter of your own personal opinion. It is simply a fact. Right? Whereas to me this is far, far more indicative of what I construe to be the [at times] rantings of the fulminating fanatic objectivists over on the right end of the political/ideological spectrum.
And then, once you get started here, you go on and on and on in the same clamorous vein:
Note to others:
You tell me what you make of all this. As it relates to the context I noted in the OP. Let’s try to keep it all in context. One or another.
We’re talking about you, and dasein. Or, that is, at least I am.
We don’t must, we just do.
Like a swiss watch, my boy.
I thought we were here to talk about dasein.
Correct, just an inconsequential opinion, like anyone else’s, as quoted above. What sets you apart isn’t that you have it, or that you have it because of your own subjective path, like everyone else, but that your opinion regarding the opinion of others, rather than the curiosity of a subjective mind, is the disinterest of a made-up objectivist mind.
That is what everybody does. That is what forming on opinion based on an intellectual position (communism in this case, the real one, not the rhetorical one ‘dasein’ which, admittedly, would not alow you to pronounce yourself one way or the other, aside from maybe describing how it is you came by your position of communism, though my own description below will be much more adequate) entails.
Because you are a person like anybody else and like to talk about stuff? Ah.
You have to read the post, I can’t walk you through every little thing now.
It has to do with you, and dasein, which is what this thread is about, ain’t it? It’s what I’m interested in, anyway.
The whole point is that you agree with me that it is a fact. That is why you don’t defend it (communism).
If you don’t understand it, you can just say so. Nobody will fault you for it.
