Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by “dasein” and “existentially” but so far I’ve gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)–and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any “good point” is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.
How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:
You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that’s what happened here. It’s not that I failed to provide a context, it’s that you don’t remember the contexts. You don’t seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said “That doesn’t answer my question at all” and you replied “Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]…” you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.
And to be honest, I wasn’t 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.
So there you go–a context–namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario–the one that prompted me to ask the question–you were asking for a context ← that was the context. I responded by asking: “So what’s your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?” ← You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn’t need additional context. You should know what your point was.
It’s ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion–and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. ← That’s a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.
Yet another god awful Biggy maxim; yes, we’re all aware of what your interests revolve around–I don’t think we could be more aware–I think if we all spontaneously achieved what Buddhists call enlightenment while reading this thread, it wouldn’t increase the degree to which we are aware of what your interests revolve around–I think the next time you copy and paste what your interests revolve around, someone’s gonna puke all over their keyboard because, frankly, we’re sick of hearing it–it doesn’t add any value to the conversation at this point–I for one recognize it as a sign that you got lost once again and can’t think of anything more relevant to post.
Ok, let’s break this down–if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.
Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe “I”, whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe “I”?
Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: “My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively […] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in […] a really, really big gap between our exchange […and] an objective understanding of existence itself.” ← To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).
So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist’s belief counts as a “point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively” whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of “I” fit into this? What is your construal of “I”?
You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:
“…there are points raised rooted in facts […] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments […] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of ‘I’”
So here we have another distinction… and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe “I”… so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you’re looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It’s certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn’t quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe “I” than my response?
Well, if that’s the case, then I suppose your response isn’t quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I’m not so sure this isn’t a Rorschach test I’m using to contrive answers to my own question.
And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.
I’ll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn’t answer my question or you did but in a way that I’m not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn’t.
My own reaction to things like this…
“My response to your latest question is simply that I can’t guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won’t backfire and cause more suffering, so it’s a gamble. But it’s one I feel confident in taking. ← Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?”
…is that once you focus in on “this particular case”, distinctions can be made between the actual existence of suffering, embedded in the actual facts of the situation, and the extent to which our own understanding of being “confident” in our own role, in our own particular value judgments is, instead, more the embodiment of how I construe “I” here [psychologically or otherwise] in the profoundly problematic nature of identity and personality…in the sheer number of genetic and memetic variables involved. Factors in which in so many crucial regards we have only so much understanding and control over.
Well, maybe that’s all you’re doing–just reacting. It certainly doesn’t seem like you’re actually responding. Most people respond by attempting to answer the question. The way you describe your “reaction” seems to be that my question simply triggers a thought in your mind, a thought about the distinction between the actual existence of [whatever] and our value judgements of [whatever], which needn’t be an answer to the question I asked. It’s like saying your reaction to my question is to comment on the way my eyes twitch when I ask it–which may interest you a ton, but to the rest of us who are actually looking for an answer, it’s irritatingly frustrating. ← This is why you illicit so much rancor with others. We are frustrated with the way you don’t play by the rules of discourse. It’s like trying to play catch with a person who won’t catch the ball but prefers to comment instead on the way I throw the ball (and expects us to respond appropriately to his comments).
gib: Well, that’s where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I’m pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer’s actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. ← In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.
iambiguous: No, the response I am looking for in what “I” construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.
gib: But isn’t that what I gave you? Didn’t I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can–both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer’s actions morally speaking–but that alone is more or less what I said it is–an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over–which you said is not the reaction your looking for.
iambiguous: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant’s.
Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you’re looking for: “the response I am looking for in what “I” construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context…” Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: “But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others…” Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada…]. The answer you’re looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for… but I think we all know that.
…it’s just another reminder of how we have come to understand “I” in particular contexts differently.
I really need to get a grasp of how you understand “I”–it seems to figure into everything you inquire into–but sigh you’re not in the business of helping others understand your point.
It’s not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding 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.
The philosophical “hole” down in which my own “I” remains largely “fractured and fragmented”.
Well, that certainly fits the pattern I’ve seen in your responses–always trying to illuminate the “other direction” one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.
That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what “we think, say and do” is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.
I’ve never really denied that–that it’s all rooted in something like your “dasein”–but I guess I just don’t abhor it as much as you do.