Iambiguous said:
“How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?”
Therefore, any existential inquiry forfeits essential connections, per discussion above, constructing mute, as such connection may connect personal moral analysis with ethically transcending overlap.
In other words You are formally right ex-cathedra( since a personal-existentially signified issue was not disclosed by You) to abstain from an unexistentially form of involvement, and heeding to my own familiarity to what I view as my existentially transcendent issue, …
At the very least I abide by such lack -overlap, however that points to an unassailable to ground , or unwillingness to form existentially derived formulations.
Even without presenting some kind of relational component strove by the above mentioned, over and above that of Nietzche’s , displays the very conditions whereby You are trying to figure out how to change the very personal conditions alluded to.
I for my part will point to Nietzche’s nihilism as the very display of the kind of analysis which ( on Nietzche’s part) proves only that lack of knowledge of future analysis may have not crossed N’s mind-to either validate or argument to confirm his definition of Dasein-as differing in kind .
On Your part, that claim would not appear similarly., For you were not born in 1844.
By a similarity I mean the sort that is the essential part of the signified narrative within Wittgenstein’s ’ family of resemblances’
In other words, whether You are speaking from life experience, that you did have a relative who had a problem with moral/ethical issues over abortion, or not, it makes little difference , whether to disclose that or not- except to retain the doubt that is fueled into what appears as an ex-cathedra construction:
It has nothing to do with good faith, as in a reductive effort to ground somewhere else sans god, then in a hotly contested Dasein. ( again referring to the psychiatrist Jaspers.
When it was Your specific question based on deliminiting the way Nietzche used { Dasein} withertall the mentioned dame question You posed.:
"How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?
Report this post Reply with quote "
and even more specifically:
“So, my aim is less in regard to “ushering in something new” and more in grappling with how to communicate “I” as I know it – broken, splintered, cracked, – in a world that is still largely nestled in one or another rendition of objectivism”
and most poignantly this:
"
Then [for me] that truly enigmatic relationship and interaction between the psychological self and the part where any particular “I” chooses to pursue this philosophically."
Asking about the distinction between the ontological and the ontic, where the ontic begs familiarity with relationships, generally, then, resisting familiarity , but excluding the principles behind it by excluding linguistic analysis based on the idea of ‘family of resemblances’ - appears as if the essential was reduced to a prior level of primary logic.
The logic of the excuses middle, the logic of the either/or- Descartes vs. Kierkegaard.