By “dasein” I roughly mean what Heidegger’s existence philosophy means by it.
Again, my answer would still be “No” unless you are in a SAM Coop. The “outside world” from the Coop would never permit complete honesty with it nor in it. Most secrets are not kept due to them being something negative but rather due to the possibility of them being either presumed negative or simply used against the group/person. People do not tell their address online, not because it is a negative address issue, but because of the possibility, not probability, that the information will be misused.
They cannot prevent the misuse of information by not telling their address.
And even though not telling something is not lying, hiding something generally and eventually requires deception (dishonesty). And as long as the world is being aggressive and presumptuous (those two tend to go together), secrecy to some degree is required and thus deception to a surprisingly large degree is required.
With Socialism and eventual Communism being the world mode and agenda, very serious deception is an absolute must and is a part of the eternal design. So the current dasein situation certainly requires pretense on many, if not all, social levels.
Another simpler but less stable form of establishing total honesty can be arranged through extreme love. The problem with that today is that the powers that be know how to aggravate and destroy any love relationship that is not approved. SAM provides for the extreme love relationship but adds the protection against adversarial interference (an extremely common dasein issue of the day).
“Love” is a great word with a huge field of meaning. I guess you mean something like “agape” (New Testament), an unselfish love.
All societies of today are artificial structures and thus require pretense in order to maintain. The leaders must appear sufficiently proper. The workers must appear sufficiently proper. The thinkers must appear sufficiently proper. Everyone must appear sufficiently proper because the whole structure depends upon the beliefs of others, not the truth of the situation.
Yes, but that is difficult to implement in reality.
There would need to be a reason at the end of life, such to give credence to the suffering as the means to create something out of someone’s life. Change in the world may make us think the reason is worldly learning-from-suffering, and perhaps humanity gets better over time by learning from that. However, if we remove suffering we take away the function and it’s utility in giving us that purpose.
Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.
Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.
I think humans mostly just want to be humans, in fact its the idea of loosing even that which generates to emotional need for power. It’s a crutch but a well deserved one.
Children can.
This is a clue.
How is it possible that ALL children can and it is so difficult for adults?
By “dasein” I roughly mean what Heidegger’s existence philosophy means by it.
Yes, but there is a lot of arguing about that, which is why I asked for your meaning.
“Love” is a great word with a huge field of meaning. I guess you mean something like “agape” (New Testament), an unselfish love.
…as well as the intimate man-women love, mother-child love, and honorable devotion.
Humans want to be immortal - like gods.
All life actually wants to be immortal, else it isn’t actually life.
Children can.
This is a clue.
How is it possible that ALL children can and it is so difficult for adults?
Children can only because they live under the canvas of the adults.
Children can only because they live under the canvas of the adults.
That is not true. If that were the case, prisoners could do so as well.
There’s something to the newness of being a child, that the aggregate of suffering is cumulative. Children simply haven’t had as much shit and time to contemplate it, to question life.
Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.
[tab][/tab]
There’s something to the newness of being a child, that the aggregate of suffering is cumulative. Children simply haven’t had as much shit and time to contemplate it, to question life.
Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.
And why oh why is that important in this matter?
James S Saint:Children can only because they live under the canvas of the adults.
That is not true. If that were the case, prisoners could do so as well.
Emmm… no.
Although prisoners get along about as well as other children, the fact that one group can do something under condition A, doesn’t mean every group can do something under condition A.
Emmm… no.
Although prisoners get along about as well as other children, the fact that one group can do something under condition A, doesn’t mean every group can do something under condition A.
Then condition A is not conditional and really just a coincidental occurance, isn’t it?
-Just like the fact that deflated is not a condition for being a blue ball.
Arminius:Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.
[tab][attachment=0]entwicklung_vkze.jpg[/attachment][/tab]
And why oh why is that important in this matter?
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.
That is correct. Do you know why?
Arminius:If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.
That is correct. Do you know why?
Yes.
Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question?
Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question?
I started the topic with that question in order to find out what some ILP members think about the topic.
I can understand that.
Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that?
I can understand that.
I also can understand that.
Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that?
Feel free to do it.