iambiguous wrote:wrong thread
=) No problem here... sorry that happened to you.
iambiguous wrote:wrong thread
Uccisore wrote:iambiguous wrote:
How is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasien in the OP not applicable to you?
This is a rather transparent sort of Kafka trap with 'objectivist' used in place of 'bigot'. If I answer that 1.) it is applicable to me, then you take it to mean you're right about everything, and I'm obligated to go on criticizing horrible objectivists. If I try to explain how it's 2.) not applicable to me, then I'm guilty of being an 'objectivist', which to you is a dirty, dirty intellectual bad guy who thinks the rules don't apply to him.
The aim of this thesis is to show that we can understand Dasein as ethical. In order to do this we first need a reason to think Dasein might be ethical. Heidegger certainly never gives anything resembling a positive account of ethics. It is extremely rare for him to even bring up ethics. So then, why should we think that his characterization of Dasein should be ethical? As an initial answer, our interest stems from Dasein as fundamentally engaged in the world.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
So when I encounter you in a discussion and I lack an interest in, say, working out whether determinism is the case, this does not mean I have a contraption you do not have. THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:The extreme example of a schizophrenic who thinks he must get permission from a door before opening it or the OCD suffering who thinks he must wash his hands 20 times after dinner or he will suffer something terrible are examples where most of us would think it
Karpel Tunnel wrote:In your world there are just contraptions and there is no way to know which is right.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think that when you focus on what everyone should have as contraptions, you close a door on figuring out which ones you want for yourself, which make your life feel better. When you try to figure out what will make the poeple in Huntsville love eachother, you haven't even started to find out how to feel OK about yourself. I could be wrong, but I smell a lot of guilt in your incredulity that someone would nto focus on finding the perfect argument that all rational people will listen to and end conflicting goods. That seems like a cross to bear and that seems to me to come from Xiantity, however much you are not a theist.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I used to think that was the case. That really your approach was rage based, sticking it to them.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I hope you have noticed that Faust is now saying similar things to what I have been saying about the way you engage in dialogue: that you shift the context of statements and do not actually (in many cases) respond to points made. And that after shifting the context, you then say that what we said 'failed', where this failure has nothing to do with our intentions or the context.
Phyllo has had similar reactions.
If you have the goal to gain some sense of 'how to live life' or how to resolve conflicting goods or any other issue via dialogue, you might want to notice that other people you claim to respect have similar reactions to your ability to actually read and listen to the people you are having a dialogue with.
You can tell each of us individually that 'really' we are afraid of your probing or we are objectivists or we are using psychobabble or we are serious philosophers or what we are saying are mere contraptions...
but perhaps noticing the pattern with you as the locus, you might want to consider that you are contributing to the reduced liklihood of finding solutions to your questions or learning something else, or being a worthwhile discussion partner.
Perhaps those are not actually your goals. Being a gadfly, trying to irritate people, having a pastime that is a distraction from pain...as a few other possibilities off the top of my head, are also human endeavors. If they or something other than having a real dialogue are your goals, well, steady ahead. Perhaps I am naive for taking your expressed goals as your real goals.
Steve Colbert with his lovely conservative character expresses conservative goals while actually, obviously, doing something else and having other goals.
It has nothing to do with those points. It has to do with you. I think that is very clear. I always cite portions of your posts when I respond to them. Here I am obviously reacting to you and what you do here and the pattern of reactions to you from a number of people, including those you claim to respect.iambiguous wrote:
Note to others:
What on earth does any of this have to do with the points I raised above?!!
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Online discussion forums tend to be limited communities, but still, like any group that meets with some focus - book clubs, hiking groups, whatever - a person's behavior in the group may become the focus of conversation between that person and one or more others.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: In individual posts, reacting to each of us, you claim that our reactions are really about us. You dismiss any criticism either as because we are afraid of the horror of your hole or as not answering your core questions, as if we were trying to do the latter. Once there is a pattern, sometimes people reevaluate. Hey, I have heard this same kind of criticism from a number of people. Perhaps there is some truth in what each of them says.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I don't expect much from you, anymore. But holding the mirror up to you entails my making the mirror. And the kind of patterns of denial, distraction and narcissism I see in you, are patterns I encounter irl. It is useful for me to notice and point them out. As I said elsewhere, not to you, there is a part of me that is still surprised, after all this time, that people behave the way you do. That naivte needs to be whittled away.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Online discussion forums tend to be limited communities, but still, like any group that meets with some focus - book clubs, hiking groups, whatever - a person's behavior in the group may become the focus of conversation between that person and one or more others.
Irrelevent. Are you really saying that my points about your behavior don't matter since most of your posts are in threads where other people do not participate?My "behavior" here revolves first and foremost around my quotes, film and music threads.
Mostly for all of the virtual friends I have bumped into over the years online,
Beyond that is my interest in probing the question "how ought one to live" in a No God world seeminly devoid of objective morality.
And then my interest in the bigger questions like determinism and why there is something instead of nothing.
So: If the manner in which I communicate my points here is not someone's cup of tea, they can simply move on to others.
I've done that time and again. The implication here is that I just make general critiques, when I have time and again, with careful citation of instances where you are doing these things.Which particular posts relatings to which particular contexts? Cite actual examples of this so that we can bring these accusations down to earth. But let the examples revolve around the points that I make in the OP here.
Psychologist thank you. Not much of a fan of psychiatry. And sure, I do this in relation to you as you do in relation to me and others. But, unlike the roleo of a psychologist, I point out behavioral patterns in your interactions with others that either contradict your own philosophy and supposed goals, or end up functioning like trolling. Obviously your behavior does not matter to you despite your supposed interest in finding out how one ought to live. It's not therapy, it's a kind of single case research. And I am happy, right now, to have you as a test subject. Never seen anything like this.This is the part where I suggest that as a philosopher, you'll make a great psychiatrist.
[/quote]I'd say ' it sounds like that to you' but I don't even believe that. But nice implied objectivism. We all know what this means. LOLAnd trust me: this sort of thing tells us far more about you anyway.
Among other things, it sounds like a personal problem.
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise..... shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims
Why does someone do one thing rather than another? What explains the action? Our answers to these questions will point to a great range of causes, reasons, motives, or motivations. In ordinary conversation we do not distinguish between these words very carefully. But a satisfying answer will often tell us something about who the person is and what they are like: “She treats the patient because she is a doctor”; “He runs away because he is a coward”; “They care for their children because they are devoted parents.” These explanations refer in some way to the identity of the person acting. So we can understand why human beings act by looking to some aspect of their personal identity.
Jean-Paul Sartre, however, is unsatisfied with this kind of explanation, because he thinks it is back-to-front. In his view it is not true that we act in a certain way because of our identity. Rather, it is by acting in a certain way that we establish an identity. Instead of saying “He runs away because he is a coward,” we should say “He is a coward because he runs away”; instead of saying “They care for their children because they are devoted parents,” we should say “They are devoted parents because they care for their children.” This kind of description can be counter-intuitive, and may even seem forced. Surely, to take my first example, she is a qualified doctor, whether she treats the patient or not.
Was Sartre being authentic when he placed his bet on "ultra Bolshevism" and Maoists? Or was he instead succeeding only in objectifying his own political narrative in the name of taking that "condemned to be free" existential leap?
Was Sartre being authentic when he placed his bet on "ultra Bolshevism" and Maoists? Or was he instead succeeding only in objectifying his own political narrative in the name of taking that "condemned to be free" existential leap?
promethean75 wrote:of course for sartre, hell would always be other people, but society would be less of a hell if there was far less objectification going on. he didn't want people to be 'things', as being such is a tremendous restriction of freedom.
In this article we will see what Sartre does and doesn’t mean by this awkward inversion of everyday language. In his reflections on action Sartre goes to the very heart of what it is to be human. He argues that our free actions are not the consequence of our identity, they are its foundation – and it is our nature as human beings always to go beyond who we are towards a freely chosen self.
Our commitments allow us to become people we might not have become and illuminate a set of priorities that might have remained obscure. Yet we are not slaves to but creators of our existence, and our freedom allows us constantly to redesign and rebuild our identity.
In a section of Being and Nothingness concerning angoisse (‘anguish’), Sartre gives two examples of individuals who discover that their identity is insecure. First, the cliff walker. Someone is walking along the side of a dangerous cliff, on a narrow path, without a guard-rail. He is anxious. It is not a straightforward fear that the path will give way (it looks firm enough) or that a gust of wind knock him over (the air is calm): it is a fear that he might willingly throw himself off and jump to his death. He doesn’t trust himself.
Many people have had an experience of vertigo akin to this. On the one hand, looking into the abyss, we want to live; on the other hand, we become aware of our total freedom. We notice that the ‘will to live’ is not an unchangeable part of our psychological make-up. The more we reflect on it, the more we realize that we are not bound by it, and we become dizzy with the possibilities that open up before us. We could be reckless and jump, for no reason at all – and this is what really terrifies us.
The second example of anguish is the reformed gambler. This person has sincerely decided never to gamble again. He has taken a firm resolution to quit. He considers himself to be a reformed gambler, and he relies on this identity to get him through the temptations that come. Yet as he nears the gaming table, his resolution melts away:
“What he apprehends then in anguish is precisely the total inefficacy of the past resolution. It is there, doubtless, but fixed, ineffectual, surpassed by the very fact that I am conscious of it. The resolution is still me to the extent that I realize constantly my identity with myself across the temporal flux, but it is no longer me – due to the fact that it has become an object for my consciousness. I am not subject to it, it fails in the mission which I have given to it.”
The identity the gambler has established for himself as reformed is fragile. He wishes it constrained him and guaranteed his new way of life, but this very wish betrays his knowledge that both gambling and not gambling are equally possible for him.
His present identity as resolved and reformed is illusory – it is really a memory of a previous identity (who he was at the time of his resolution): it is already surpassed, and the resolution will not be effective unless it is remade once more.
How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?
Camus seemed to place his bet more on individual freedom -- a man or a woman choosing to live an authentic life by rejecting overarching moral and political dogmas. But that doesn't make the points raised by, among others, Marx and Engels go away.
promethean75 wrote: so forget about what is 'right' or 'wrong'. the continuum isn't moving toward righter or wronger, but what is more efficient, cost effective, less wasteful, more distributed, etc. this shit works automatically, bro. you could make philosophy disappear and it would still happen.
philosophy is not the source of it, nor can it stop it. there simply cannot be a philosophical narrative that could convince people they shouldn't want to better their lives... and since the vast majority are struggling at the advantage of a much smaller minority, that mechanism works to resolve the conflict.
promethean75 wrote: yeah so no, my nihilism is not at all what the existential theater has portrayed it to be. it's no passive resignation to fate or any bullshit like that. rather it's an active nihilism that invites radical, experimental change if even it puts the world in danger.
promethean75 wrote: i have a profound faith in man as a creature that is notorious for figuring out how to make shit work. my nihilism is not a loss of faith in man, but a high spirited casual withdrawal from philosophical floundering. i'm not interested anymore in asking stupid metaphysical questions. been there done that. i mean sure, i too have esoteric thoughts and weird ideas, but i realize that they cannot be talked about clearly... so with them i pass by in silence.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]