On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone — 180 Proof

And some are determined to accept it while some are determined to not accept it.

How do you know this to be true? — Truth Seeker

I know it to be the truth of me. Its truth value beyond that matters not to me.

So you're more saying "these are not fundamental" -- which I hope you see we agree on. — Moliere

That is correct. I was being hyperbolic with the "pop psychology" and should have said to the effect "the notion that existence precedes essence is not a fundamental tenet of existentialism". I should save the hyperbole for Facebook.

I was caught up on the notion that Sartre misinterprets Heidegger. — Moliere

The idea that existence precedes essence stands on its own as does Sartre's philosophy insofar is it relies upon the idea that existence precedes essence. Whether the idea is an accurate interpretation of Heidegger is relevant only to whether the idea is fundamental to existentialism per se. And I suspect that is an issue that would interest neither Sartre nor Heidegger.

someone who is trying to understand all that is existentialism — Rob J Kennedy

I don't think it's a misinterpretation -- at least no more a misinterpretation than what Heidegger does with Aletheia; the man got criticized for not representing the notion historically correctly, — Moliere

I agree that all misinterpret. But Heidegger's interpretation of Aletheia is irrelevant to whether "existence precedes essence" is a fundamental tenet of existentialism.

And I make my argument for the sole purpose of cautioning "someone who is trying to understand all that is existentialism." Please see original OP.

The notion that existence precedes essence is pop-psychology. Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. It is not!

And I suspect Nietzsche would argue that "essence" is just another version of an Apollonian value framework grafted on to being in order to sublimate manifestations of will to power in a seemingly reasonable manner.

I am.

WHAT is known of stillness — Kizzy

It is clearly not infinite. Arguably, the big bang is the annihilation of the "stillness".

Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency. — Chet Hawkins

I agree. The notion of essence as qualities grafted on to existence is a rationalizing of moral agency in a light we consider most favorable.

INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. — Chet Hawkins

Being a Dasein is not a social status conferred upon selected biological organisms and comes with no entitlements.

The fish is entitled to do as it may.

eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen

Good stuff. Infinite amount of forces X, Y and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest. The only finite element of the scenario is the at rest.

you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans — Chet Hawkins

I made no such implication. Instead, I did and do assert that Heidegger is better situated to describe the fundamental ontological structure of a human than of a fish. It matters not to Heidegger if fish turn out to have the same fundamental ontological structure as human. But how would he know? He doesn't experience being as a fish.

Dasein is the term given to any and all beings having the characteristics of Dasein. Being a Dasein is not a social status among biological organisms and it comes with no entitlements.

Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply. — Chet Hawkins

Being-in-the-world is a fundamental state, not a social status. It doesn't make anybody special.

YES there are! That is the metaphysical hurdle we are just beginning to come to grips with as a species. Granted a few of us have always been a bit saucy and into caviar of the spirit, wisdom. But these days the love of wisdom is being translated into 'My self-indulgent grift for the unwary' — Chet Hawkins

As true as all of that may be, it is important to keep in mind that those are your claims and not Heidegger's.

I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world.
— Arne

I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree. — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you that some philosophers suggest Heidegger is using Dasein as a way to give some sort of normative status to humans and I disagree with those philosophers.

Heidegger is not making normative claims. A bird is in the unique position of being a bird. A fish is in the unique position of being a fish. A human being is in the unique position of being a human. And it is from that position that he is describing being a human.

Heidegger is unable to describe being a bird or being a fish in the same way that he is able describe being a human, i.e., from the inside. Heidegger is not handing out any awards. Being-in-the-world is not a privileged status. It is a fundamental state of being for that being whose mode of being is existence. It comes with no rewards.

What I consider to be most stupid is when people are completely off-topic, or when I am not able to figure out a coherent argument from what they have written. Maybe pointing out the behavior that I didn't like made people self-conscious and not post those things. — Brendan Golledge

I agree.

But most philosophers use that word, Dasein, in a selfish way to show humans as some sort of unique entity. I claim they/we are only a natural and inevitable progression of essence from the beginning of time and natural law. — Chet Hawkins

I agree. People act as if Heidegger is handing out awards to entities having the characteristics of Dasein. Perhaps the check is in the mail.

But that a pre-ontological being is in a unique position when it comes to describing its own ontological structure strikes me as a no brainer.

The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. — kindred

Perhaps we misunderstand nothing. As post bang beings, our concept of "nothing" by any measure returns the result of "no thing."

There is no beginning to an infinite amount of force X, there is no end to an infinite amount of force X, and there is no movement to an infinite amount of force X at rest. An infinite amount of force X at rest is a state of being that by any measure returns a result of "no thing".

So for those who consider pre-bang being to be an infinite amount of forces X, Y, Z and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest, then pre-bang being is a state of being that by any measure returns a result of “no thing.” And out of nothing . . .

Perhaps I will name my next band Post Bang Being. :smile:

To me, the truth is objective, by objective I mean it does not depend on the mind so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them. — MoK

which is the same as saying they would be valid for no one.

.

Birth of Tragedy

So, to me, there is no particle in the entire metaverse that does not partake of this same math, this same model, choice. Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency.

That moral agency though is an absolute value +- the effect number. It means the great moral possibility ONLY comes with the risk of equal evil. — Chet Hawkins

Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last.

Even being in the world, physically present, can be a tragic thing, because you can be a corpse. If you then say, that is not you, then you lose. Because that is what being-in-the-world must mean right? Alive? Or does it? With my model all particles are alive. — Chet Hawkins

For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in".

K. seem to have had close connection to Christianity and God in many of his writings. How does his concept of God fit into existentialism? — Corvus

Though Kierkegaard was the first existential philosopher I read seriously, it has been many years But I will do the best I can from memory.

For Kierkegaard, an existentialist scorn for philosophical system building is accompanied by an existentialist scorn for theological system building. (including and maybe especially the hierarchically organized Christian religion throughout Europe.).

And just as philosophy should focus upon how to live an authentic life, so too should Christian theology focus upon how to live an authentic Christian life. He considered as absurd the philosophical and theological attempts to prove/disprove the existence/nonexistence of God. Instead, the commitment to live an authentic Christian life must be rooted in a "leap of faith." And so one who lives an authentic Christian life is the Knight of Faith.

I hope that helps.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states. — RogueAI

Are they? And does it matter to your argument? You seem to be suggesting that the Ancient Greeks did not have brain states because they did not talk about them. And if they did have them but not talk about them, why would the "identical" relationship between brain states and mental states be any different for Ancient Greeks than for others?

Identical" is a strange wording that's prone to confusion due to different people's understanding of what that exactly entails. That's why most philosophers talk in terms of supervenience instead. — flannel jesus

I agree.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states.
3. Ancient peoples coherently talked about their mental states.
4. Ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their brain states.
5. Therefore, mental states are not identical to brain states. — RogueAI

Is the logic what you wish to discuss or do you wish to discuss whether brain states are "identical" to mental states.?

The logic is at least flawed prima facie. And if brain states are not "identical" to mental states for all (including the Ancient Greeks), then brain states are not "identical" to mental states.

Please advise.

What you will mostly find are over-long posts filled with too much information. — Joshs

I can vouch for that. :smile:

I was joking.

All of the comments you direct towards me are respectful and on point.

Remember that you are a nobody online. You are part of "the stupid people" that most everyone thinks everyone else is. :) — Philosophim

I love that line. And there is no end to the disrespect some feel entitled to heap upon a member of "the stupid people." Just like Facebook!

As a philosophy major, I was surrounded by faculty who considered the failure to be theirs' whenever a student failed to grasp the ideas presented. Sadly, that nurturing environment produced some thin-skinned graduates unprepared for the disrespect heaped upon "the stupid people."

Law school was a swift and brutal cure for a thin skin. :smile:

Arne, I'll try to write simple prose. Then blame me if it confuses you. Either way, I'll answer what you asked about God and heavy lifting when I doubt that it'll help me falsify Craig's brand kind of theism. — BillMcEnaney

I appreciate your reply though I was not expecting one at this time.

I will wait here until you are ready to present and argue your notion that Mr. Lane's "theistic personalism causes a vicious infinite regress".

I look forward to it.

He had all the symptoms. His primary concern was on the existence of the individual. Anxiety, dread, authenticity. . . . He was a significant influence on Heidegger.

Perhaps you are. I'm not ... — 180 Proof

Its the same when someone asks me if I believe in God, I generally and sincerely respond "sometimes". I enjoy reading Heidegger and Nietzsche, but I can find no reason to exempt either from the Nietzschean sense that perhaps its all an illusion. . .

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". This is considered central to social organization: — Vera Mont

Thank you. I was looking for some clarification along those lines. In some way, the generation of the need for jobs is more important to some than is meeting the need for jobs.

The interesting thing is that, despite their not using any modern technology and their scarce use of modern healthcare, they are both wealthier and longer lived than the general public. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. Does your knowledge extend to the issue of the distribution of wealth among the local Amish? And I wonder if the distribution has any significant affect upon the "social organization?"

if I knew what you were talking about, I might be able to agree or disagree. I might be willing to do some homework (such as read an article or two on each side of the issue) . But coming out of total ignorance regarding either side of the issue is a heavy lift. But I do have Google. . . But until such time as you can tell me what you are talking about or I can get a sense on my own, I can only rely upon my natural disposition and vehemently disagree. . .

and besides, an infinite regress would not be a heavy lift for God?

:wink:

essence becomes and is not 'what is' (e.g. will to power, freedom, or being-in-the-world — 180 Proof

I appreciate the reply, Arne, but I do not read these three philosophers this way — 180 Proof

I do not expect people to read them as I do. And your reading on the existence/essence issue is more dynamic and richer than mine and I adopt it.

But to say that existence precedes essence is to beg the question of what is the existence that precedes essence of the human. For Sartre, the existence that precedes essence of the human is freedom. For Heidegger, the existence that precedes essence of the human is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, the existence that precedes essence of the human is will to power.

And when the context is set by someone "trying to understand all that is existentialism" (Please see OP), putting teeth to the ambiguous notion of "existence precedes essence" is in order.

Similarly, to not say "human" existence and "human" essence when someone is "trying to understand all that is existentialism" is to risk the gravest of all existentialist sins, i.e., writing the "human" out of the equation, literally.

Perhaps I am an existentialist?

All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else. — Metaphyzik

I do find it interesting that not a single arguably significant philosopher felt the need to define it. And sadly, defining terms for purposes of which philosophers meet the definition makes it easier to ignore philosophers that are likely worth reading.

"being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof

They are not synonymous and the lack of clarity is on me. For Sartre, human existence is freedom. For Nietzsche, human existence is will to power. For Heidegger, human existence is being-in-the-world. But no, Sartre's freedom is not the same as Nietzsche's will-to-power and neither are the same as Heidegger's being-in-the-world. I apologize for any confusion. .

Reason alone suggests that if human existence is X, then X is human existence. That does not mean that other entities might not exist in the colloquial sense of the term. But they are not using their terms in a colloquial sense and they do not equivocate.

For example, Heidegger identifies three modes of being (ready [or unready] to hand, present to hand, and existence). Heidegger assigns the term existence as the mode of being for entities having the characteristics of Dasein. (“That kind of Being towards which Dasein. . . always does comport itself. . . we call ‘existence’” Being and Time at 32.). By default, the mode of being for all entities not having the characteristics of Dasein is either “ready [or unready] to hand” or “present to hand.”

Existence belongs only and always to Dasein and Dasein is the only being that is and always is being-in-the-world. Existence is being-in-the-world. There is no wiggle room.

Anyone who spends time on YouTube nowadays, as I have come to do, will find there is an extraordinary amount of philosophical dialogue and cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary dialogue going on. — Wayfarer

It is a gold mine.

Is this the best possible social organization? — Vera Mont

I don't think the social organization is an accurate mirror of the employer/employee distinction. Economic status would be more accurate than employer/employee. There are thousands of millionaires who are employed by large corporations and they are not employers. My personal experience is that the same is true among lawyers and it is likely true among doctors. It just seems to me that the "social organization" resulting from the economic system has more to do with what you earn regardless of whether you are an employer or employee.