a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 6:34 pm

Errybody after Descartes thinks they’re improving on him when they’re actually parroting or garbling.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 13, 2022 7:21 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Errybody Everybody after Descartes thinks they’re improving on him when they’re actually parroting or garbling.


Next up: Everybody after Jesus Christ.

Or after Muhammad ibn Abdullah?

Buddha?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 7:55 pm

transcultural Golden Rule cuz eternal. but only one lived to … um … you could prolly write this part better
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:54 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:transcultural Golden Rule cuz eternal. but only one lived to … um … you could prolly write this part better


Of course: back to the inane gibberish that is now actually prized here at The New ILP. :lol:




Note to meno:

How inept, I know. Show her how it's done!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:transcultural Golden Rule cuz eternal. but only one lived to … um … you could prolly write this part better


Of course: back to the inane gibberish that is now actually prized here at The New ILP. :lol:




Note to meno:

How inept, I know. Show her how it's done!! 8)


… in this moment … to speak the lines it occurs to me to speak … is not within my capacity

Sorry. You caught me in a sane moment. Keep trying, though.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:transcultural Golden Rule cuz eternal. but only one lived to … um … you could prolly write this part better


Of course: back to the inane gibberish that is now actually prized here at The New ILP. :lol:




Note to meno:

How inept, I know. Show her how it's done!! 8)


… in this moment … to speak the lines it occurs to me to speak … is not within my capacity

Sorry. You caught me in a sane moment. Keep trying, though.



godot to iambiguous:

If you respond to this blockhead one more time, it's over between us :!:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:12 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:Errybody Everybody after Descartes thinks they’re improving on him when they’re actually parroting or garbling.


Next up: Everybody after Jesus Christ.


Uncle.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 1#p2858421
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 20, 2022 5:32 pm

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Being-in-the-world

He associates Dasein as “Being-in-the-world”, they are often used hand-in-hand. Being-in-the-world is an existential concept that emphasises human existence as a state of living with a highly meaningful orientation. Each individual has a unique destiny to fulfil in this world.

This is an essential characteristic of Dasein. It is defined as an a-priori structure being “grounded” in the state of Being.


And why might that be?

Because with human beings, being is ever and always a sojourn...an existential trajectory embodied in the act of becoming from the cradle to the grave. We are not a “Being-in-the-world” so much as a being that is ever and always evolving out in a particular world. And, depending on when and where you were "thrown" at birth, how you come to connect the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world with others" can be profoundly different.

As for destiny, that is no less problematic. Being or becoming, your life might literally be destined if everything you think and feel and say and do is wholly determined by nature. But even given some measure of autonomy there are any number of factors in our lives that predispose us to go in directions that are not either fully understood or within our control.

But in order "establish" the "essential characteristic of Dasein", Heidegger seems more inclined to define it into existence given an "a-priori structure" that others can then draw their own conclusions about regarding, among other things, Nazis.

As mentioned before, Dasein is not a Being that can be observed, how can we then understand it? Heidegger would tell us to study beings, and especially what it is like to be a human being.

We need to look at what is unique about our situation as human beings. But what makes Dasein different from all other beings: rocks, plants, and animals?


Well, for starters, rocks, plants and other animals don't engage in philosophical discussions about the nature of Being. They don't interact in an "is/ought" world. They don't dwell on dasein in the manner in which "I" do in that world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 27, 2022 5:28 pm

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Feature 1. Being as an issue

The first feature of Dasein is that it is a “being as an issue for it”. It takes its own being as an issue; for it is ontological being. In other words, it asks questions about its own existence, it is always confronted with the question “what shall I be today, tomorrow or next year?”.


An ontological being. Then, of course, for me, how far back one is then inclined to take this. After all, you can take it back so far that you are forced to admit you don't really have a clue as to where "I" fits into what reality may or may not be. Where does your own particular "I" fit into the world around us today? Where does that fit into the "human condition"? Where does the human condition fit going all the way back to a comprehensive understanding of Existence itself?

Is it any wonder then that some scoff at philosophers who don't simply get on with the far more pressing business of just living their lives and coming up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact with others.

And these questions are to be answered by oneself, he calls it “mineness”. We have no other way of experiencing ourselves or the world as being in any other mode than our own existence.


"Mineness". But first for years and years you are indoctrinated to be but another replication of "theirness". And even here wholly dependent on the particular time and place in which you just happened to be born. Philosophers are no exception to that profoundly existential manifestation of human identity. The questions you come to ask may or may not be the questions others ask. The answers you give may or may not be entirely in conflict with theirs.

Isn't this the most important issue by far? Exploring not "mineness", but the profound limitations of philosophy in explicating what that means at all.

For example, connecting the dots between Heidegger's own philosophical assessment of "mineness" and...fascism?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 06, 2022 5:49 pm

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Feature 2. Care

The second feature is “care or concern”. We not only find ourselves in the world, but we care about it as Being-in-the-world. Heidegger uses the word “care” as a technical term which has to do with our engagement with the world for various purposes.


Of course, in regard to "care or concern" as they pertain to my own existential rendition of dasein, each of us as individuals comes to care about those things that unfold in our lives as they do and not as they might otherwise have given very different experiences. And, as a result of this, what some care about others could not care less regarding. Then the endless squabbles over what we ought to care about in a rational world. Or in the best of all possible worlds.

For example, there's what Vladimir Putin cares about in Ukraine. And not just "technically".

Things are meaningful by themselves; meaning is not an add-on to existence, but rather the definition of existence. In other words, we are embedded in meaning, and there is no exit from making sense of one’s life.


So, what do these words mean to you? Technically or otherwise. Given the manner in which you care about what is unfolding now in Ukraine.

To be a Dasein is to always be doing something and pointing towards something, to be a being that is constantly engaged in doing tasks that we care about. Therefore, the essence of Dasein is its existence. We are instantly turned into the structures of everydayness and being-in the-world.


Something perhaps along the lines of Sartre's "existence is prior to essence"? No Gods around to ground one's individual existence in. Doing and pointing in your own particular world understood in your own particular way?

What is important is that Dasein is its possibilities, it needs some context within which to work these out. In our case, as the beings that are being analysed, that context is the kind of world we find ourselves in.

Heidegger concludes that “care” is the primordial state of Being as Dasein strives towards authenticity.


So, anyone here then interested, given a particular set of circumstances in which we might care about very different things in very different ways, in exploring Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein?

With respect to what, philosophically, it means to us to "strive towards authenticity"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:19 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

A hasty reading would see Heidegger’s “Dasein” as referring to a person, or consciousness, or self-consciousness (as Scruton, 2010, does, for example). This is financed by certain points of Being & Time: “We are ourselves the entities to be analyzed” and “we are it (Dasein), each of us, we ourselves”. However, not only does this characterization overlook sections of Being & Time where Heidegger specifically militates against this view, but it also forecloses all of the theoretical gains of Heidegger’s project, which largely rest in his discovery of the pre-personal, ontological “layer” preceding the ego, namely: Dasein.


Really, try to wrap your head around what on Earth, given your day to day interactions with others from the cradle to the grave, "the pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego" can ever actually be!!

If this isn't an exercise in constructing "intellectual contraptions" in a "world of words", it'll do until one comes along.

And, as always, what I am more interested in is in exploring "theoretical gains" insofar as they might be relevant to my own understanding of dasein pertaining to the world of actual human interactions. In particular interactions that precipitate conflicts revolving around moral and political value judgments.

But, sure, that's just "me".

What I strive to avoid at all cost in regard to dasein are truly obtuse analytical contraptions like this:

So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analyzed”? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein.


Analyze this yourself and then bring it to out into the world that we live and interact in. I'm curious to ascertain the extent to which others are convinced that thinking of this sort really is pertinent to the "human condition" that we all participate in from day to day.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:53 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

The Ego

Heidegger criticises Descartes for not thinking the sum of the Cogito ergo sum. We can think of the concept of Dasein as aiming at this Sum that creates the context such that there can be “I”s and “thinking” in the first place. Taking the thinking ego as the seat or exemplar of existence (being) makes a methodological mistake.


Anyone here every aimed at the Sum...and hit it? Anyone here ever hit it in regard to that which I think most about: How ought one to live on this side of the grave in order to attain the optimal fate for "I" on the other side?

If so, let's hear it.

As for "methodological mistakes", note one of those too while you are at it.

I think, therefore I am. But even here Descartes has to assume that his is not in a sim world or a dream world or a reality as construed by the folks who brought us the Matrix.

“According to Heidegger, Descartes’ point of departure is not derived from the human mode of being in the world but rather from a metaphysical worldview which partakes in the way he — as a human being — is relating to the world” (Pearl, 2013, p.20).


Whatever, given a particular context, that means?

This is to say that Descartes begins from an already established metaphysical position in order to study the beings that we are, but he doesn’t question that this metaphysical position is a product of the beings that we are (taking it instead as some prior or fundamental feature), and, what’s more, only a narrow mode of this being.


Of course, establishing metaphysical positions up in the intellectual clouds is one thing, intertwining them in the lives that we live down here another thing altogether. Up there the "beings that we are" may as well be what the Christians among us here say that God is. You "study" God by reading the Bible. So, does someone who embrace Heidegger's conclusions about Dasein "study" us by reading Being and Time?

How wide or narrow will the conclusions be given, say, a particular newspaper headline.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:56 pm

Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:49 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

Thinking is not the only way of being of Dasein. Even if every instance of thinking carries with it an “I”, the being that we each ourselves are is not exhausted in the kinds of self-conscious reflection whereby the Cartesian ego is discovered.


The Cartesian ego...

The "phantom self"? The "ghost in the machine"? The "homunculus"?

In other words, whatever one wants to call the gap between what he or she thinks "I" is and what in fact it actually is instead.

And how many of us here will go to the grave before science or philosophy pins that down? My guess: all of us.

On the other hand, we can merely presume that what we think it is is in fact what it is. Call it, say, your "soul".

Most of the time we’re just busy getting “stuff” done. It’s this feature of us, these beings that we are, that Heidegger pays special attention to: Dasein in its “everydayness”.


Yes, Dasein in the either/or world. Where there actually is an objective reality that never changes from day to day to day. And then those who think -- delude? -- themselves into believing that in the is/ought world Dasein just carries on per usual. As though the Self in both worlds are interchangeable. Why? Because God or His secular equivalent is there to fall back on to make everything either this or that. The crucial "transcending font" that "I" can be anchored to.

Which, it seems, is completely irrelevant here:

That is, Cartesian skepticism or intense philosophical reflection or scientific inquiry are obviously two ways of being that the beings that we are are capable of; as is scaling the north face of Mt Everest and being launched to the moon. But these impressive and rare capabilities of this entity that we are need to be understood as special cases of a more general, less exciting but no less mysterious, context. The general context of this being that we are “is to be shown as it is proximally and for the most part — in its average everydayness.” The name for this is Dasein.

This is to say that prior to being this or that thing (a rational animal, a res cogitans, a brain, etc) we are firstly just being. Heidegger hopes to capture this being in its effervescent verb form prior to its reification into “I” and “thinking”.


Got that?

Okay then take this point down out of the intellectual clouds and note its applicability to "I" in the is/ought world. Not "scaling the north face of Mt Everest and being launched to the moon" but into discussions that shift the focus to whether men and women ought to pursue these things. Is it necessarily rationally to send astronauts to the Moon, or is it more necessarily rational to spend those billions and billions of dollars to solve problems down here on Earth?

And how ridiculous might it perhaps be construed to speak of someone "just being", without a context in which they are being this when others insist they ought to be being that instead. What of Dasein here?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:14 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

The Features of Dasein

Two features immediately inhere to Dasein: that its being is an issue for it, and that its being is in each and every case “mine” (its).


In other words, Dasein the intellectual contraption. Occasionally in reference to the either/or world but almost never in reference to the is/ought world.

Unless there are those here familiar with Being and Time who can note such instances.

1.1a Being as an issue for it

What does it mean to say that Dasein’s being is an issue for it? It is easiest to compare this stance to its opposite: indifference. The being of a lump of granite is a matter of indifference for the lump of granite. We can launch it into the center of the Sun to be vaporized into hydrogen, and this would be just one more thing that has happened to it. Not so with us.


The mirror test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Some animals pass, the vast majority fail. But none that pass, pass anywhere near as broadly as we do. Indifference is not the word most of us would come up with in describing our own reaction to our own being/Being.

But, again, being as an issue for us in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. Not that it isn't an issue for all of us in both worlds but how our communication often breaks down when it becomes an issue for us in the world of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

However, we should not anthropomorphize Dasein any more than the lump of granite. That Dasein’s being is an issue for it, not a matter of indifference, is evinced by its (our) protestations immediately before being fired into the Sun, but it is not fully exhausted by them. Dasein’s being an issue for it is not merely a survival instinct, or an affective preference for life over death. What makes it an issue is the peculiar way in which Dasein is vis-à-vis its “whatness”, that is, its essence.


Its essence. The essential issues for it? Don't fire me into the Sun. But the main issue here is the conflict between the reasons someone might want to and the reasons I don't think that they ought to. What is the essential truth here?

Or: Don't send me packing to the death camp. The fact of it and the morality of it. What is Dasein here? How are they distinguished?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 06, 2022 4:48 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

1.1b On Essence and Existence

If I were to ask you “what is a house?” we could talk about the necessary and sufficient conditions and properties that form the essence of “houseness”, the “whatness” of a house, and eventually finish. It’s not even necessary that the thing we discuss in this way exist currently. For example, I could ask you “what is a perfect house?” and the subsequent properties and conditions we settle upon and write upon a napkin may not be instantiated anywhere in the world currently. This introduces an order of rank: the “whatness” of things, their essence, can be seen to exist happily prior to the thing’s existence, such that if we were to stumble across a really existing “perfect house” we can then say “That’s it!”


Now, let's shift from Dasein to my own dasein here. The landlord has evicted Tom from his house. Say, a medical affliction caused him to lose his job and he could no longer keep up the mortgage payments. The discussion shifts from "what is a house?" to "was it moral or immoral to evict Tom"?

How would you situate the manner in which Heidegger construes Dasein in the second discussion? We all know what it means for one Being to evict another Being from his home. And it's not a question of legality because where Tom lives it is perfectly legal to evict him.

No, instead, it's a question of morality...of ethics. How here does the philosopher weigh in? As a Kantian? Is possible deontologically to reason our way to a moral obligation here?

However, if I were to ask you “What are you?” there is a sense in which any answer you give will be unsatisfactory. Answering “I am a person” points us to the question of what you mean by that, and from there a myriad of possible answers come up: a featherless biped, a political animal, a rational animal, a Homo sapiens, so on and so forth. However, each of these definitional characterizations need to be actively taken up by you, receiving your blessing in a choice that precedes them all.


And then the part I always come back to: "what are you?" in a particular context out in a particular world historically and culturally and personally? And then the part where what you think you are, you are able to demonstrate to others such that they would agree that this is what you are. Why? Because, in fact, that is what you are.

But then the part where you say "I am a libertarian" and someone else says "I am a Marxist"; and then given a particular set of circumstances you are able to demonstrate to others that they ought to be what you are too. Why? Because in fact who you are here is in fact what all other rational people ought to be.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:52 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

The “person” example works in the same way, as does any response you could give, any simple ascription of a “whatness” onto your being. This is why Descartes misses Dasein when he thinks himself as “a thinking substance”. Dasein’s being is not answerable to a whatness, to an essence, that precedes it, but, rather, its essence lies in its existence, through which it makes various choices about what its whatness is and will be, not by contemplating, but by realizing them through living: “The question of existence never gets straightened out except through existing itself.” (Heidegger, 2008, p.33) In other words, Dasein chooses what it will be, and this is its essence. Or, more accurately, it is its possibilities, which open it up onto the future, and its activity of choosing, and doing, one or the other as ways of being.


The part where Heidegger is construed to be an existentialist while Descartes is construed to be anything but. It's not what you are but always the potential to become something other than what others might perceive you to be. The possibilities that one can choose if one did not "believe that all material bodies, including the human body, are machines that operate by mechanical principles". Especially when this machine is also a "devout Christian".

Similar to Sartre's "existence precedes essence". And for some his "Hell is other people". Why? Because they do attempt to objectify you. To turn you into a "whatness". Not only that, but turning themselves into a "whatness" as well. Whatness, in the is/ought world, I call the moral cand political objectivists.

“The essence of Dasein lies in its existence. Accordingly those characteristics which can be exhibited in this entity are not ‘properties’ present-at-hand of some entity which ‘looks’ so and so and is itself present-at-hand; they are in each case possible ways for it to be, and no more than that” Heidegger

Thus, its being is always an issue for it, because it is always confronted with the question “what shall I be today, tomorrow, next year?”


Over and again: that's the basic existential scaffolding that we all carry around with us day in and day out. We all ask ourselves that. The Nazis asked themselves that back when Heidegger was around, as did the Jews. In other words, like this is some extraordinary insight!

Though I suppose for those who predicated everything that they thought, felt, said and did on one or another God or one or another political ideology or one or another "school of philosophy", it might actually be.

But for me it couldn't possibly be more obvious: here I am, what shall I do next?

Instead, the far more interesting question revolves around those situations in which you choose to say or do something and someone else objects to it. That's the part where my own dasein comes into play. Sure, you can go through your day and choose to do any number of things that have absolutely no impact on anyone other than yourself. But when it does impact others enough to piss them off then you're confronted with conflicting assessments of the "right thing to do". What of philosophy and ethics and political science then?

Furthermore, its being is always an issue for it in the survival-instinct “don’t launch me into the sun!” kind of way as well, because it is also confronted with the question “Will I be tomorrow, next year, etc?”


Yeah, but how many of us are confronted with literal life and death situations from day to day? Now, in Ukraine it's a whole other story. Or if you're riding the subway in Brooklyn.

The closest many of us have come to this is in regard to the covid pandemic. According to the worldometer site, 1,013,044 Americans have died from it. And over 6,000,000 around the globe. Life and death down to the bone.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:11 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

Finally, its being is an issue for it precisely because it can think “what is Being?” and be troubled by such a question. This is a capability of Dasein, along with buying cabbage, calculating Pi, and saying “It’s raining cats and dogs out there”. Neither houses nor lumps of granite can boast that their being is an issue for them in any of these three ways.


Again, this is supposed to be, what, some great insight that philosophers in the past missed? No, what troubles most of us about the question is this: that while we think that our own "being" in regard to conflicting value judgments has come up with the optimal answer, damned if lots and lots of others don't insist that, on the contrary, it's their "being's" answer. Some even insisting as well that this is the case because their God sent them a Scripture in order to prove it.

Or, if No God, a manifesto?

And, for sure, "neither houses nor lumps of granite" have one of those.

1.2 Mineness

The second feature that inheres immediately to Dasein is that its being is always and in every case “mine”. This has two senses. Firstly, carrying on from its being being an issue for it, its being is an issue for only it. The question of “what shall I be next year” is my, and only my, issue, and I will only work it out through my own existing onto next year.


This, from my frame of mind, is precisely the sort of thing a philosopher might "think up" in the intellectual clouds. Yeah, sure, the narcissist and the egotist might make it "me, myself and I" all the way down. But unless he or she is a survivalist or the only human being around, its "being" is not only going to be derived from others, it will have consequences for others.

Then the parts that revolve around dasein. His or her indoctrination as a child. His or her existential scaffolding into adulthood involving sets of circumstances only understood or controlled up to a point. All of the variables in their lives that can come at them...factors coagulating into experiences that become nothing less than the embodiment of contingency, chance and change.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:35 pm

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

Because I’m always working out my whatness through the business of existing, of doing and choosing and speaking and thinking and interpreting and making, and this issue always comes back to me, regardless of whether I let the world or others reveal certain facts to me, there is a sense that I am accountable all the way down.


Which of course "in reality" is ridiculous. Are you accountable for being born? Are accountable for being brainwashed as a child? Are you accountable for all of the many, many, many people and experiences and events that can come at you from all directions as an adult. In fact, the more you think it through the closer you come to accepting just how much of your life is either beyond fully comprehending or fully controlling. It's amazing that we understand ourselves as much as we do.

The business of existing, bursting at the seams with contingency and exigency...both amidst the vicissitudes of the ordinary and the extraordinary...is for the human species far, far, far more problematic than for all other creatures. Animals that by and large are driven almost entirely by instinct, libido and deep-seated drives.

This is where Heidegger introduces the normative category of “Authenticity”. Dasein is always its choices and possibilities, but doesn’t often realize this. Often it just carries out actions because “that’s what one does”, thus disavowing its responsibility in its choosing to choose a course of action. This is Dasein in an inauthentic mode. However, inauthentic Dasein is not for that reason lacking in any of the being that Dasein is. The difference is one of comportment towards oneself and one’s being. Accordingly, we will not spend time exploring this distinction in this analysis of basic features.


This is philosophical jargon for...for what exactly?

"Normative category"?

"Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible." wiki

Come on, if Heidegger was truly interested in integrating Dasein into the is/ought world, he would have spent considerably more time in Being and Time exploring authentic/inauthentic behavior given his very own moral and political prejudices.

The irony of course being that many today insist that any number of Germans back then lived "inauthentic" lives because they allowed those like Hitler to turn them into full-blown Nazis. They lived out the normative parameters of others rather than their own. They allowed their subjectivity to be owned and operated by the state. Any number of whom became full-blown fascist thugs.

After all, what is the "Final Solution" but how far the fulminating fanatic objectivist minds can go?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm

Identity and Postmodernism
From UKEssays

The stability or otherwise of identity has become a major battleground for sociological theorists in recent times. The infamous ‘postmodern’ turn has rendered identity a deeply problematic phenomenon. In this paper I will investigate the claim that identities are unstable sites of contestation.


Phenomenon: "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question".

Again, back to the obvious:

What in particular is being observed? Who is observing it? What do they think they are observing" What can it finally be determined [and then demonstrated] to in fact be?

How is a human identity any different?

Well, for one thing, our identity is not a thing being observed. It's not a tree or a cinder block or a tube of toothpaste. It is a complex amalgamation of objective facts and relationships. Of ever evolving changes. Of purely speculative assumptions rooted in behaviors chosen based on yet more assumptions about right and wrong, good and bad.

All the postmodernists have done is to turn the focus in more on the language that we use to describe it. The phenomenal relationship between words and worlds. The extent to which we can substantiate our words about any particular identity by showing how they are entirely in sync with the world around us.

Vladimir Putin for example. He's been in the news [and in the minds] of many of late. What can we pin down objectively about his identity?

I will do this by examining the dissolution of identity within postmodern theory before examining both the negative and more importantly, the positive consequences of this. This will enable a deeper understanding of precisely what is meant by this fluid notion of identity, and where possible criticisms and inconsistencies can be located within this theory.


Okay, imagine you existed a century ago. Before the advent of "postmodern theories". What about you then would have been subject to "dissolution" had they been around? What about you now can in fact be "dissoluted" by the postmodernists? How exactly would we -- philosophers -- go about pinning that down?

The question isn't the "fluidity" of human identity. That's just commonsense. How someone who is now 60 was when she was 10 or 20 or 30 will reveal any number of changes. Some glaring, others less so. Biological changes, demographic changes, facts regarding any number of aspects that constitute "I". Changes almost none will question or refute.

And hardly just "theoretical".

And changes that some see as negative, others might see as positive. Again, we will need to know what those changes are given the particular life that one lives.

But what if the changes revolve instead around value judgments. You change your mind about abortion or homosexuality or consuming animal flesh or the proper role of government. Here "I", now that you are 60, might be nothing at all like "I" when you were 20. How would this be assessed objectively?

And what does that have to do with the arguments made by postmodernists?

Or the arguments made by me?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 13, 2022 6:01 pm

Identity and Postmodernism
From UKEssays

The debate over the stability of identity is one that is inseparably linked to postmodernism. This diverse group of theories centre around, in Lyotard’s famous phrase, ‘incredulity toward meta-narratives.’ Postmodernists maintain that the project of modernity has failed, and that no single source or body of knowledge can legitimise itself as a universal measure of value or identity.


Two points:

1] Like all the rest of us, postmodernists are creating their own narratives as a result of the life that they live out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Some of it can be demonstrated to in fact be true and some of it is only what they think is true...their own personal opinions. Others may see the same situation differently. You go back and forth trying to pin it down, but it never really is.

2] human reality is such that, if you are able to convince yourself that your own narrative does in fact reflect something in the vicinity of a "metaphysical" truth, then from your frame of mind it is. And, far more important still, you will behave as though it is true objectively. And it is through the behaviors that you choose that consequences occur. For both yourself and for others. Thus if stability is important to you in regard to your identity there are any number of "isms" out there from which to choose. And certainly not just mine.


Postmodernism no longer allows us to theorise society into homogenous identities which can then be totalised in a grand-theory or meta-narrative. This is also the case when it comes to the identification of the self. Rather than the self maintaining a stable core of identity, from a postmodern perspective identity is fluid and is dependent upon where the self is historically and culturally situated.


Let's just say that I understand this better than you you. If in fact that's true. But in fact I am no more able to demonstrate that it is than you are that it's not. But then I understand this better than you do too.

As Luntley (1985) notes, this conception of the self threatens the very possibility of self-identity:

The loss of self-identity is threatened because if we situated the self in real historical circumstances, we would situate it in things that are contingent and constantly changing. Therefore, the self would also be constantly changing. It would be in flux and would have no continuing identity.


And all I ask of others is that they at least make an attempt to demonstrate that this is not at all the case for them. Instead, their own particular moral and political and spiritual foundations really are a reflection of the One True Path to, among other things, enlightenment.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 20, 2022 4:05 pm

Identity and Postmodernism
From UKEssays

Once the very identity of the self comes under threat, then so does the possibility of any coherency in social theorising. A postmodern society is one in which the identities of the social actors are undergoing constant transformation.


And how can it be otherwise since identity itself is thought to be rooted out in particular worlds understood in different ways by individuals who live in this world experiencing truly diverse sets of personal circumstances. What seems coherent to some seems utterly foolish and irrational to others. And constant transformation because our interactions are submersed in the relentless reality of contingency, chance and change. Even here however some experience this far more than others. Then there are those global episodes that can impact millions like the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Identity then becomes open to contestation as there is no longer any ultimate referent (truth, science, God etc.) to provide universal legitimation.


That "transcending font" which most call God. And not only on this side of the grave but, of far greater importance, on the other side. After all, what is the 70 to 80 odd years we live from birth to death on Earth compared to all of eternity. On Judgement Day "legitimation" determines whether we go up or down. Paradise or damnation.

In Lyotard’s terms, the impossibility of a grand or meta-narrative leads to the social being constructed of small narratives, none of which are necessarily more valid than another.


Small narratives ever and always derived from individuals living their lives out in particular worlds understood in particular ways historically and culturally and experientially. And while each "ism" insists that their own "meta-narrative" must prevail, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that their own One True Path -- one among hundreds and hundreds of others, both God and No God -- might not actually be the "ism".

Why?

Well, back to the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Back to the "psychology of objectivism". Back to my own speculation that for the objectivists among us [and they know who they are] it's not what they believe but that what they believe is the font they embed I in in order to sustain their own "comfort and consolation" all the way to the grave.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 27, 2022 4:33 pm

Identity and Postmodernism
From UKEssays

Any theory that aims at totalising society should only be seen as one constructed from a particular perspective (e.g. one that still remains in the logic of modernity), rather than a totalising theory as such.


And lest we forget, there is, in my view, the significant -- gigantic? -- gap between "totalizing society" in one or another theoretical construct and being able to demonstrate out in a particular community of actual flesh and blood human beings how that society can reflect/encompass the least dysfunctional interactions. Your "rules of behavior" or mine?

Whilst postmodernism can be viewed as liberating and opening up seemingly limitless opportunities for re-theorizing society, it does at the same time impose new problems. Firstly, there seems to be an inconsistency in the postmodernist stance, as it could be argued that the theory of the dissolution of meta-narratives is a type of meta-narrative itself.


Cue, among others, Wittgenstein? And forget about "re-theorizing society", how about the act of actually choosing behaviors itself without a "meta-narrative". Without God or ideology or deontology or Satyrean assumptions about nature.

But, sure, there's always the argument that post-modernism itself is just another meta-narrative. Which is why I always insist that discussions of it be taken down out of the theoretical clouds and introduced to, say, the real world? The one where we interact in social, political and economic contexts that precipitate conflicting assessments of right and wrong, good and evil, true and false.

And then the part where in "opening up" your options you become "fractured and fragmented" as I am.

This criticism can also be applied to the postmodernist take on identity, for in arguing that identity is ultimately unstable and fluid postmodernists inadvertently provide a certain rigid structure in which identity operates (i.e. that all identity must be unstable).


Which is why a distinction must be made between one's identity in the either/or world and one's identity in the is/ought world. Given a specific set of circumstances. I believe "here and now" that in the absence of one or another "transcending font" the "self" will become unstable. You are who you think you are now. Then in a world inundated with contingency, chance and change, new experiences cause you to question that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:17 pm

Identity and Postmodernism
From UKEssays

...whilst postmodernism is liberating on the one hand, on the other it sets limits to the very possibility of any meaningful social theory or practice. This is exemplified in the disparity between postmodern theorists, some of which view postmodernism as opening up huge opportunities for getting rid of authoritarian grand theories, others view it as essentially debilitating as the only thing that can prevail in postmodern societies is a sense of meaningless flux.


I fit in here somewhere but, again, only in making that crucial distinction between either/or world human interactions and interactions that revolve more around conflicting moral and political value judgments.

In other words, in regard to conflicting goods, in seeing myself "fractured and fragmented" as that pertains to my own hopelessly drawn and quartered sense of moral and political ambiguity and ambivalence, "I" am considerably closer to the debilitating end of the spectrum. Yes, moral nihilism as I construe it, provides me with many more options. And that's because unlike the objectivists, I am not anchored to "pick one", the right or the wrong thing to do. But what good is this freedom when I can never feel securely anchored to any sense of objective reality at all. At least not in regard to value judgments.

Within this disagreement the postmodern analysis of identity remains reasonably intact, both sides of the argument largely accept that identity is fluid and unstable. By analysing this disagreement we can therefore obtain a better understanding of the various aspects of fluid identity.


And yet like you and others, the fluidity of my identity in the either/or world is considerably less problematic. Here stability can revolve around the circumstances in our lives hardly changing at all from day to day, from week to week, from month to month. And, for some, year to year and decade to decade.

Jean Baudrillard, for example, argues that the dissolution of identity is a process that started in the nineteenth century and was exacerbated in the twentieth.


Pertaining to, among other things, "the death of God" and full-blown capitalism. In particular, the Industrial Revolution. Thus...

In the postmodern era, historical processes have undermined the stability of identity, so that it becomes impossible to meaningfully theorise about social identity. Rigid identity and meaning are destroyed due to the rise of global capitalism and the demise of the referents from modernity (truth, purpose, meaning and so on). ‘Gone are the referentials of production, signification, affect, substance, history, and the whole equation of “real” contents’. Identity now becomes a radically fluid and empty vessel, which becomes temporarily filled with content that has no foundation or ultimate meaning.


Basically what I am arguing myself. Though, surely, one antidote is objectivism. Either God or No God. We come into the world hard-wired to find meaning...and so we find it. First derived from others as children, and then [given autonomy] new experiences bring us into contact with other possibilities. And there is never a shortage of "isms", right? I myself subscribe to moral nihilism. I just have no illusions that it is not but one more manifestation of dasein.

Whilst for Baudrillard this cannot be thought of as a particularly positive or negative phenomenon, as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ no longer have any real meaning in postmodernity, it does render theoretical and political action largely impotent. This is why in postmodernism we are presented with numerous texts heralding the end of theory, history, meaning and so on. The dissolution of identity means for many postmodernists that theory and meaningful political action are no longer possible.


Of course that doesn't explain the fact that millions upon millions of men and women around the globe are still firmly anchored to one or another, at times, dogmatic, doctrinaire, domineering objectivist credo. Sacred or secular.

And these folks are hardly impotent. On the contrary, here in America, they are thriving. The cult of Trump for example. Hell-bent on bringing America back to the 1950s.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:22 pm

Where Does Identity Come From?
A fascinating new neuroscience experiment probes an ancient philosophical question—and hints that you might want to get out more
By Jason Castro at the Scientific American website

Imagine we rewound the tape of your life. Your diplomas are pulled off of walls, unframed, and returned. Your children grow smaller, and then vanish. Soon, you too become smaller. Your adult teeth retract, your baby teeth return, and your traits and foibles start to slip away. Once language goes, you are not so much you as potential you. We keep rewinding still, until we’re halving and halving a colony of cells, finally arriving at that amazing singularity: the cell that will become you.


You and Benjamin Button.

Only when I imagine a life being rewound, the focus is more on the variables that shaped and molded our value judgments. The biological variables after all are applicable to each of us. We all began as a single cell in the womb. We all share the same biological components. The genetic codes that are generally beyond our control. Like the time and the place where we are born. Like the social, political and economic parameters of our first years.

It's not that language goes but how the words that shaped and molded our sense of reality itself go with them.

The question, of course, is what happens when we press “play” again. Are your talents, traits, and insecurities so deeply embedded in your genes that they’re basically inevitable? Or could things go rather differently with just a few tiny nudges? In other words, how much of your fate do you allot to your genes, versus your surroundings, versus chance? This is navel gazing that matters.


Who presses "play"? God? Nature with its immutable laws? Lady Luck? If your biological/genetic components remain exactly the same and all of the environmental factors do in turn it would be something analogous to Nietzsche's eternal return. But if nature is the same but nurture is different those accumulating "tiny nudges" can result in some truly dramatic changes in your life. Re Ben Button here: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

Then the part where our reaction to this is rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Reactions no less derived from those tiny nudges I suspect.

Though, for some of us, from far more dramatic experiences.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users