a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Shaping The Self
Sally Latham examines the construction of identity through memory.

Ask me about the most vivid “false memory” that I had.

But to the extent that a memory is either true or false in regard to one’s sense of identity, the implications for dasein are no less embedded [for me] in the extent to which what you remember is able to be confirmed as in fact true. Whereas your memories of experiences involving moral and political value judgments can be unequivocally true or false…but that doesn’t make what you remember anymore convincing as a value judgment said to be either demonstrably right or demonstrably wrong.

Come on, how can Locke’s “criterion of identity” here not be just the sort of “technical” argument that has little or nothing at all to do with someone other than Lady Gaga being Lady Gaga.

Here we would have to invoke multiple universes or sim worlds or Matrixes in which, reality wise, practically anything goes.

Let’s not forget though that memories unfold “in our head”. And to the extent that either philosophers or doctors or neuroscientists do not fully understand what that entails, it’s all going to be basically a “technical” examination of reality/“reality”. Ending [for some] in the belief that even the technical discussions themselves are only as they ever could be in a wholly determined universe.

The Self and Self-Knowledge
Richard Baron inspects different ideas of the self.
A book review of an anthology on the self and self-knowledge.

No, what really counts as a person? What is the most important factor to take into consideration when pinning down the philosophical parameters of “Know Thyself”?

Well, we all know where I draw the line here: between those things we describe about our self that are able to be confirmed as in fact true objectively, and those things about us that start with, “In my own opinion…”

After all, when push comes to shove, out in the world of actual human interactions, what else “for all practical purposes” is there?

Well, that’s good. Ethics is now my own primary motivation for pursuing philosophy: “how ought one to live?”

And rationality in “special roles” can only be explored substantively given particular contexts.

And I am certainly fully disposed to state my own beliefs and feelings. Not to mention deconstruct yours. :wink:

The I am on your side guy says:

Construction is easy( err) deconstruction waaaay hard(err)

The Self and Self-Knowledge
Richard Baron inspects different ideas of the self.
A book review of an anthology on the self and self-knowledge.

This becomes particular important for those who insist that morality and rationality are interchangeable. Ayn Rand and her objectivists ilk in particular. Here ethics becomes nothing less than a metaphysical certainty. That way the world can be divided the rational few and the irrational many.

Of course when the focus is on the “concept of self” then all one need do is to think up the one and the only conceptual dimension of ethics to go along with it. Your own for example. Indeed, that there are have been hundreds of them championed down through the ages is “proof” of just how crucial it is grasp this relationship philosophically. The irony here being completely lost on the objectivists.

Concepts. Beliefs. Feelings. Stated or not in my view, what really counts must be the extent to which we can anchor them in descriptions of human interactions able to be defended beyond the concepts, beliefs and feelings themselves.

How about this then, I suggest: a particular context in which to explore them.

Instead [of course] this particular context must first give way to philosophical assessments of this sort. We must pin down what it means for “an entity that pursues its own coherent projects as a single entity, with one set of thoughts” to become a part of a group of such individuals such that the task then becomes making a distinction between “I” and “we” and “them”.

What the individuals may disagree about or come together as one and embrace must not become the main focus of “personhood” in examining the “ethical dimension”. At least not “in the beginning”.

Yes, these distinctions are not unimportant. And they are all over the map historically, culturally and experientially. But, in regard to an actual situation in which ethics becomes a major concern, what are the limits of any particular philosophical quest.

That’s precisely why, in my view, we need to include contexts in the quest. From the beginning.

The Self and Self-Knowledge
Richard Baron inspects different ideas of the self.
A book review of an anthology on the self and self-knowledge.

What could possibly be more, well, categorical and imperative?

The biological brain has to be the point of departure. We only have an identity able to explore the “ethical criterion of personhood” either by way of philosophical pursuits or “natural intuitions” because the evolution of biological life on Earth has [thus far] culminated in the human mind.

So, the crucial juncture has to be in exploring the relationship between genes and memes. And while we all come into this world with pretty much the same biological hard drive the part that revolves around the nurturing we get from others and the nurturing we pass on to the next generation seems to be the source of any number of far more problematic…contexts.

And for all practical purposes in the either/or world that’s about it, right? We go about the day doing any number of things, either alone or with others, and it never occurs to us to ask, “who am I?”

Okay, “perceptions, not a self”. But that takes us all the way out to the really big questions. The part where the interactions of object and subject need to be explained given the existence of existence itself. The part where, once again, in the either/or world none of that actually seems to matter.

The Self and Self-Knowledge
Richard Baron inspects different ideas of the self.
A book review of an anthology on the self and self-knowledge.

Needless to say the exploration into self-knowledge here gets bogged down in the “technical” minutia of how as biological entities we come to connect the dots between “I” and the world around us. The self here is presumed to exist in a world where we have "beliefs, desires and sensations " relating to either/or relationships such as state capitols, reactions to chocolate or having or not having a headache.

In other words, excluding hardcore solipsism or sim worlds of demonic dream world or levels of Matrix realities.

The part where I may or may not have the capacity to grasp and communicate knowledge about the Self in a technically correct manner myself but a world in which this is within the grasp of those sophisticated enough to grapple with such things as logic and epistemology more rigorously.

Think for example any number of posts here from those like Faust or Only_Humean.

Then just more of the same:

Here there is what you think is the right answer and the extent to which there is a right answer able to be demonstrated as in fact the right answer for all rational men and women.

Of course as with the volcano there may be a right answer – it either will or will not never erupt again – but even the “experts” are unable to determine that beyond all doubt.

As for what we want or desire, here things become problematic in the is/ought world. We may want something that others insist rational men and women ought not want. Or we may want the same things but come to squabble over the means chosen to get them.

Dasein And The Arts
So how do you apply philosophical principles to think about art? An example can be derived from an unlikely source. Reneh Karamians uses Heidegger’s philosophy as an illustration of how to understand aesthetic experience.

On the other hand, come on, philosophers can “describe” or “define” humanity in any number of ways if their conclusions ultimately come down to the descriptions articulated in a world of words.

Bottom line [one of them]: that, to this day, we still have no definitive, demonstrable argument that clearly separates mind from matter. Including the assumption that mind is but more matter wholly in sync with a determined universe.

And, again, being in what particular world? For example, when Heidegger’s Dasein contends with my own dasein in the pitched battles that flare up over conflicting moral and political value judgments.

Or, sure, stay up in the clouds:

And isn’t this just a hop, a step and a jump to one or another religious dogma. Or to one or another ideological dogma. Like fascism.

Or even a combination of both: sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … azi-occult

The Science Channel documentary: FORBIDDEN HISTORY The Nazi Occult

Needless to say, in regard to my own rendition of dasein in the is/ought world, I’m for going in the opposite direction.

Which is why the objectivists here among us are so intent on either excoriating me or “foeing” me. Their whole “philosophy of life” revolves around the psychology of objectivism which revolves around the belief that there must be an “essential nature of humanity”. Why? Because, well, damn if they haven’t discovered it themselves!

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

From my own frame of mind, however, an appreciation of Heidegger’s thought revolves around the extent to which someone is able to bring his conclusions down out of the philosophical clouds and make them come alive in descriptions of actual human interactions. Which particular being out in which particular world doing which particular things “right-side-up”?

I merely narrow the focus all the more given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein [existentially] in the OP that begins this thread.

And, if Heidegger were still around, I’d note for him the manner in which dasein as I know it makes most others particularly uncomfortable. We could compare reasons why. I could make my distinction between I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world. We could discuss this distinction in regard to, say, fascism in America today.

Of course, from my own vantage point “here and now”, it is the moral and political objectivists who have “institutionalized” their own “interpretation of life and the world” such that those who do not or will not share their own value judgments are deemed to be inauthentic by continuing to be alienated from the one true path.

Like for example, right here, obsrvr524’s “Coalition of Truth”.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Hmm, this ought to be interesting. An actual context [however ambiguous] in an actual world [however Williams imagined it].

First, however, this part:

Here a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens. And an individual who is has much invested in it.

Somewhat problematic? The gap between wheelbarrows, chickens and human beings with minds able to write poetry examined by philosophers would seem to be, among other things, nothing short of astounding. Minds that are even able to speculate that the gap may well just be an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined world in which wheelbarrows chickens and human beings are actually just different kinds of dominoes that nature set into motion going back to an explanation for nature itself. What if the human brain is just another kind of thing in the world. The dasein thing.

And, if not?

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Exactly!

That’s my point. So much depends upon the context in which these words have meaning for the poet. So much depends upon his frame of mind at the time he wrote them. So much depends upon whatever might be the “larger meaning” of them. He wrote the words from one vantage point, we read them from another. So, in that regard how might we make a distinction between Heidegger’s Dasein in Being and Time and the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in my signature threads.

And all I can do is to note this as my own interest and to invite others to comment on it given that which prompts them to react to the poem as they do.

Personally, the poem evokes almost nothing in me. And I certainly don’t respond to it as “a microcosm of ‘the world’”. And no doubt in part because I am not at all familiar with the work of William Carlos Williams. An existential component of dasein given my own life.

Now, suppose Williams had created these lines and the wheelbarrow, the chickens and the rainwater had existed in a German concentration camp. Heidegger reads the poem. How would he distinguish his Dasein from my dasein then? That’s the sort of discussion that appeals to me.

As opposed to, say, this one…

Really, what on earth is the point of an assessment like this? An Entity and a No Entity world?

A “relation”?

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Exactly. Isn’t this the first thing that has to pop up in our head? My first reaction is to think of anything that comes close to me which might relate to depending on “a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens”.

Nope not much comes up at all. So I can only try to imagine what might have prompted Williams to pen the poem. As in “so much depended” on him writing. Which can only then revolve around someone having asked him why he did write it?

What else is there “for all practical purposes”?

So, is anyone here aware of Williams having explained what he meant by the poem?

In other words:

My point of course is that if the poem does refer to an actual existing man or woman we could them why so much depends on these things. And there are things we can know about him or her that we can all agree are true: is he short or tall or somewhere in between? Is he young or old or somewhere in between? There are any number of things that can be determined about him or her that we can all agree on with respect to the either/or world. But the reason so much depends on “a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens”?

Well, here the reason might refer back to something that we can all understand objectively…or not. It could refer back to something in the either/or world or to something in the is/ought world.

But, whatever it is, what on earth are we to make of Heidegger’s distinction between the person not being in the poem, but rather the poem being “in” the person?

Given a particular context in which so much does defend on “a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens”.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Once again I can only challenge those here who think that they do grasp the significance of this point, to take it out into the world that they live in, and, in regard to their interactions with others, note how it is relevant given a context in which we can differentiate the manner in which Heidegger construes Dasein in Being and Time and the manner in which I have come to understand it given the OP on this thread and the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

And he knows this…how? Is he privy to the intention and the motivation of the poet? What if it is in reference to a particular man making reference to a particular set of circumstances in which much did depend on “a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens”? Does this make the poem more or less interesting, intriguing, insightful? And how is the answer to this not more dependent on my understanding of dasein than on Heidegger’s?

I’m sorry, but this is nothing short of unintelligible to me. How it is to be as a human being oneself?

I ask anyone here defend their own understanding of that. And, sure, in a context of their own choosing.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

We’ll need an actual context of course. That way we can compare and contrast what those here who believe they do grasp what Heidegger means by “the ontological constitution of Dasein”, with what I mean by the existential parameters of dasein out in a particular world in which flesh and blood human beings interact in an actual set of circumstances embedded now and not then, here and not there: historically, culturally, experientially.

Anyone here willing to explore this distinction with me?

In the interim, back up into the clouds…

Again, this all seems closer to common sense to me than to a revealing philosophical insight. Yes, in particular situations entities like wheelbarrows, rainwater and chickens can actually become a part of our lives. They will have more or less significance to us depending on why they would or wouldn’t. Who needs to be a “serious philosopher” to grasp that"? Although, sure, the technicians among us can then intertwine things we sense/perceive/conceive into really, really complex [and often obtuse] logical and epistemological discussions.

And then I am back to asking them to take those conclusions relating to Dasein and commence a discussion with me regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein with respect to conflicting moral and political value judgments. And, possibly, in regard to the parts on the other side of the grave.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Going back to the poem, yes, any particular one of us might assign significance to this or that wheelbarrow, this or that chicken or this or that rainfall. If, for example, we are a farmer. There are aspects of them in combination that might be accounted for in a particular narrative containing particular facts. No controversies or philosophical debates pop up at all. Here, from my frame of mind, Daseins are more or less interchangeable. They are part and parcel of the biological evolution of life on Earth culminating in a species that interact with wheelbarrows, chickens and the weather. But that is hardly the context in which I broach my own little “d” dasein.

Of course, any one of the dozens of Gods that are worshipped and adored by members here might reveal Himself/Herself/Itself and put an end to that speculation. Being then becomes whatever an omnipotent and omniscient God commands it to be. Although for the No a God/the God denominations that might still be rather problematic. Or for those who worship gods and goddessess. Would they vote on it?

Of course for Heidegger the assumption is that God/Being is more an existential contraption:

Now all we need do is to bring this to the attention of each individual out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially. See if the philosophers among them can reconfigure this “general description” into an actual moral narrative and political agenda. As, in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, Heidegger did with the fascists?

Time, like space, like matter, like energy, like “I” itself remains a profoundly problematic mystery going back to, well, you tell me. And intellectual contraptions of this sort may or may not get us closer to pinning it down. But there is still the time that we experience existentially in the course of interacting with each other from day to day. Time spent interacting in the either/or world and time spent interacting in the is/ought world. Then the part where I configure Dasein into dasein in regard to conflicting value judgments.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

I merely point out the obvious here: that, when you are “thrown” historically and where you are “thrown” culturally and experientially, can only be played down or just shrugged off in the manner in which so many objectivists do.

In fact, they have to play that down or shunt it aside in order to convince themselves that their own doctrinaire moral narratives and political agendas transcend all that mere “existential stuff”. Others are obligated to share their own value judgments precisely because they are derived [philosophically or otherwise] from the most rational thinking of all.

Well, Dasein may discover this philosophically in a intellectual contraption, but dasein has to deal with all of the particular variables that come to encompass one’s own unique personal life. And isn’t it basically this anxiety which propels so many to embrace one of another rendition of “the psychology of objectivism”? Subsume all the uncertainty, confusion, ambiguity in the conviction that in being “one of us” you’re one of the good guys.

On the other hand, this part, even as an “intellectual contraption” truly resonates for me:

Only, for me, the little “d” dasein comes to revolve more around this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

Or what I call an “objectivist”.

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone here familiar with anything that Heidegger said or wrote that would connect the dots between this “philosophical assessment” and his own views on the Nazis and fascism? How did he connect them in his mind?

Now, in regard to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, if I had enough information about the life he lived, the experiences he had, the relationships he sustained, etc., I’ll bet I could explain a lot about it.

But when Dasein is ever up in the intellectual clouds what on earth does it mean for it to embody a “lost” state…or to be “inauthentic”.

Anyone familiar with Heidegger care to go there?

Seriously, how can a point of view – worldwide or other – be disembodied? What for all practical purposes can that even mean? No, for me to call a point of view authentic or inauthentic we need two or more bodies expressing a point of view about some aspect of the lives that we live. A rock is a thing. A hammer is a thing. As are most other living creatures. Their “point of view” either does not exist or is almost entirely autonomic. Propelled by nature in the form of drives and instinct. Imagine discussing a lion taking down a zebra in terms or authentic or inauthentic behavior. As for “clock time”, tell that to someone who is counting the seconds to one or another really, really important event in their lives.

I just finished reading Being and Time a couple weeks ago. I’m not an expert on philosopher Martin Heidegger but I question this fellow Oxenberg’s interpretations. Of course if I were to discuss the book with you, you would get my interpretation which is questionable as well. From my reading of your use of the word Dasein, it’s at least somewhat consistent with Martin Heidegger’s. Beyond that it wouldn’t surprise me if you were to dismiss every concept in Heidegger’s book as a contraption.

Martin was the Leonardo da Vinci of philosophical contraptions.

Well he coined a lot of terms, or at least used a lot of words in technical senses that they hadn’t previously held. But he did it in the service of the understanding of being. Whether you think that’s a worthwhile project or not depends on your own Dasein, or situation, or being- in-the-world, a fact that he helped to clarify. Now he subsequently changed his methodology in later writings, departing from his method of coining neologisms. And he gave up the project of elucidating fundamental ontology because he came to see that ontology is always relative to its historical epoch. In any case if one dismisses his concepts as contraptions one will never see what he’s getting at.

Here is a picture of martin two seconds before the infamous face palm that followed his reading of Wittgenstein:
72309038fc43c5860d01b0cda5857a7b--heidegger--september.jpg