I think I understand the rest of what you say. But this suggests to me that applying any entity having the characteristics of Dasein will cause that entity to exist. ??? — Ludwig V
acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?
That's makes it all clear enough. Take it or leave it. — Ludwig V
Assuming we allow every other philosopher the same license, it seems that each philosophy exists in its own silo. How does an outsider choose between them? On grounds of internal consistency? Is that enough? — Ludwig V
Thank you! And that is awesome to hear and ... things get interesting. I am trying to make my tack a polished thing and that is not easy when one is trying to make a case, present for propriety amid truth. And then make sure that this presentation is in no way a deception, apart from pointing at it and saying, 'yes this is a stretch here, but it seems like the BEST stretch I can think of right now.'Firstly, I sincerely admire your writing, at least in this particular response. And whether I fully understand/follow/agree or not, it is inspiring in a way which transcends the topics being discussed. There are others like you in this forum, but it merits mentioning. I'll read your response more thoughtfully (likely a few times) and will let you know if I have any comments relating to this post. — ENOAH
I admit quite easily to this possibility, and you are direct and fair-minded to present it.But for now:
determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection
— Chet Hawkins
Is it possible that this interconnectedness of all things "idea" which inspires my submission that, to keep it simple, there is nowhere a real burden of choice, but only the illusion that a deliberate being is deliberately choosing (and the suffering which is concomitant with that illusion)...is it not possible that that is not determinism, but only seen as determinism from a perspective which also sees free will and the burden of choice. — ENOAH
And an examination of each chooser would reveal more to this equation. The various motivations impact each other in a complex pattern. With some choosers that tend to have no power, what they had for breakfast can be the deciding factor. With others that tend to have power, their life thrust and belief set is perhaps an almost tyrannical deciding factor. That is chaos and order respectively. But then we have to consider the state, the times, etc. The interweave cannot easily predict which specific motivation will rise to the top in any state. It can be surprising.Again, to keep it simple. When x triggers y triggers z triggers suicide, the suicide was not predetermined. X could have triggered b instead, and y could have triggered quitting one's job. "Choice" is built into that process, but it is an illusion, in that the "choice" was triggered. — ENOAH
And here we disagree entirely. No, it is NOT possible. Were fundamental balance not the truth, the universe would self destruct instantly. It would take an amount of time that is the smallest possible unit of time. That fundamental imbalance would be the most catastrophic truth in existence. Instead the 'bargain' made is that imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE.Sure call that chaos, call it meaningless. But is it not possible that from the perspective of the "order" we have constructed; a thing necessarily working with/making meaning, things like meaning, order, balance, and perfection matter. While really, Nature is before/beyond that "order" and (only because we have to assess its function do I say this:) it "functions" as a whole--not with design or predetermination--where each part has an effect upon the other(s) including, ultimately, that whole. — ENOAH
This is ... not nearly so well crafted as it must be to be meaningful. Order is present already. In fact I define fear and thus order ENTIRELY as an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. On any level within reality, order is only tied to the past. It seems compelling. All awareness is order, clearly. All readiness is order. Joy as a decision, is orderly. And joy and happiness are NOT the same things.Being before/beyond the order (human Mind) of course we will impose order upon it as part of our dominion over Nature. That is, as part of human Mind displacing Reality. — ENOAH
Et tu Brute? I agree entirely. I feel so embarrassed to have expressed myself so poorly here. These issues of philosophy require a virtuoso. I am not equal to that task. But I am called to it. So, on-on!Anyway, I fear tge complexity of my thoughts about this far exceed my capacity to express it briefly in this forum. I find, the best I can do is offer morsels with the hope, not just that someone bites, like you; but that someone is able to digest it, that's my biggest challenge. Do not, from that, feel obligated to continue biting. I do appreciate your input already. — ENOAH
Ouch! The false humility of mind is easily seen here. And I am not just attacking you there. That is a real thing in the world. The restraint of order is a first order humility, cowardice. From that destroyed ego the fearful observe and plan and experience joy with humility. It is wise in a grand way, perhaps the best way to face uncertainty and such, hard times.You counsel from the path of mind alone
— Chet Hawkins
Actually, I submit Body alone. Mind, though it exists, is a system of empty signifiers displacing the Body with its empty Fiction.
But
— Chet Hawkins — ENOAH
I mean, clearly I know that. But it's fun to point out circumstance and make overmuch of it. It can weave a web of connection where it might seem that none is present. And that is the point.your happenstance name
— Chet Hawkins
It happily amuses me that you think my name has any relation to the Ark builder. That's part of what i meant by your writing having an inspirational tone. I am tempted not to correct you. But alas, no. — ENOAH
I mean you and I can mostly agree here, as mentioned. But the final mover, the truth, remains balanced and supportive of the only real law, free will.The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps, now you see I am not purporting a predetermined reality; but an interconnected one where even our "choices" have been triggered, even by structures of Reasoning and logic autonomously arising to the task, having been input into our minds at some point(s) in our local and universal history. — ENOAH
No instead, this is a lack of faith from order towards the precarious requirements of balance. Rather than face the truth of the difficulty, the orderly type, seeing this ahead of the chaos types, despairs of ever being able to do it. That fear sends them demanding down branches of false order, like determinism. It's predictable. It's sufferable.In fact, my intuition is that those who push free will do so out of fear and wishful thinking; a conceited desire for our constructions to be real etc. — ENOAH
No, desire is no illusion. It is a primal force. Fear and anger are the only other two equal forces. Everything permutates from the interaction of those three.What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.
— Chet Hawkins
This is nice. Like you, I like to think about the possibilities of morality or nobility of an atom. But.
You mention "desire" a few times but I'm unsure of its role. For me, there are drives, and feelings, but desire is like meaning, order, and choice: constructs of the Mind which superimposes itself on Nature and displaces it with Narratives. Desire evolved in the system of Mind (not by design or predeterminedly, but by chance) to keep the Signifiers growing and constructing. — ENOAH
I explained it. Hopefully that can at least be informative of my stance.Ah, here I am again. Far too much to say, to little room to elaborate.
I am interested in how desire fits in for you as used in your reply above. — ENOAH
Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not. — Chet Hawkins
Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism — Chet Hawkins
One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part — Chet Hawkins
Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking — Chet Hawkins
sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. — Chet Hawkins
It can be surprising. — Chet Hawkins
I appreciate the beauty of this. It moves me. But, as much as I wish otherwise, it is because the words triggered feelings which they evolved over time, my locus, and human history, to trigger.imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE. — Chet Hawkins
Fear is delusional. (So is desire). — Chet Hawkins
There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. — Chet Hawkins
So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth — Chet Hawkins
.. and H. acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?
That's makes it all clear enough. Take it or leave it. — Ludwig V
My summary was badly expressed, so my meaning was entirely obscured. There are the modes of being, so we need to understand, not only the three modes, but what they are modes of. We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three, perhaps in the way that colour applies to all the colours, and yet every colour is a specific colour, or perhaps in the way that wood is common to everything that is made of wood, and yet every wooden object is a specific object or something else?I am not really certain of what you mean by that. — Arne
"Constitutive" is an interesting idea here. Aristotle draws a distinction (I don't have a reference ready to hand) between components of something that have an independent existence and can actually be separated out - laid on a bench beside each other, for example - and components that cannot be separated out, except "in thought". So, we can think of a single shape as both convex or concave, and we cannot think of a concave shape, without also thinking of a convex shape. I can see the relationship between existence and Dasein in the latter way rather than the former. Does that capture what you are saying?Existence is constitutive of Dasein much as roundness is constitutive of a circle. You cannot add existence to Dasein any more than you can add roundness to a circle. Existence belongs to Dasein much as roundness belongs to a circle. Dasein is a unitary phenomenon rather than a collection of parts. — Arne
Because Dasein seems more like a point of view than a subjective view. A point of view is impersonal and objective. Yet it can be occupied or adopted by an individual, but in now way recognizes individuals as such. Recognizing myself just means recognizing the possibility of adopting that point of view. I can, as it happens, recognize Dasein as a possible point of view, but not myself in it.For example, it you examine his description of Dasein and recognize yourself in it, then why in the world would you not keep going? — Arne
Many philosophers would complain that because he does not indulge in argument as such, he is dictatorial, or rather oracular (echoes of Popper's Open Society. But I don't dismiss him on those grounds. Wittgenstein is not dissimilar, in that he presents examples and comments, leaving it up to his reader to think through what they mean. (It is an idea that is found in a few other philosophers at the time, such as Anscombe)But Heidegger did choose the phenomenological method because it is descriptive. You can decide whether you agree with Heidegger by looking at the description he gives to the phenomena he describes. — Arne
In one way, you are right. But in another way, we all make choices in everything we do. No-one can read everything, and so we must decide what we pay attention to. That decision is much more difficult than it seems, because it must be made without knowing what we will find when we pay attention to something. Our choices are dictated by the environment we find ourselves in and how we respond to that we find there.Nobody has to choose between philosophers. And being internally consistent does not make a philosopher any more or less correct than any other philosopher. But it does make it easier to understand what they are saying. — Arne
I agree with that. Not that there is ever a point at which I can sit back and say that I have now understood Heidegger or Wittgenstein or .... Perhaps it is enough, given that we cannot find the end of philosophy, to understand the answers that have been found worth taking seriously.And besides, it is more important to understand what Heidegger has to say than it is to agree or disagree with him. And as difficult as it may be, it is worth understanding what Heidegger has to say. — Arne
No, he certainly did not. He found it all very difficult indeed, and didn't make things particularly easy for his readers. His early work certainly emphasized analysis, logic and structure. But he changed his mind! (Shock! Horror!) His later work moved away from all of that.And this (fool) very educated man deigns to suggest that it's enacting is easy? — Chet Hawkins
Fear is all order, all thought, all analysis, all logic, all structure. I am not saying it represents those things. It literally IS those things. Likewise, desire is all freedom, chaos, becoming, etc. — Chet Hawkins
The axis of good and evil is unlike the other one. With order and chaos, balance is the right way. That is ... understanding, wisdom. But there is no BALANCE in the axis of GOOD and evil. It is actually only rising amounts of GOOD, so evil is nothing special, only less GOOD. — Chet Hawkins
All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled.Anger demands you stand to the mystery. Desire pulls you towards perfection and only a living universe can respond, so it is alive, and it does. Evolution towards greater moral agency is a law of the universe. — Chet Hawkins
From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V
That helps a lot. The point about commitment is that it is authentic and so part of my essence. (Am I free to abandon my commitments? If so, how are they authentic and essential? If not, how am I free?I don't quite follow you. As I read them, Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists (i.e. commitments which manifest an 'essence') and Camus is an absurdist (i.e. striving against both 'having an essence' (idealism) and 'not having an essence' (nihilism)) – none, however, are nihilists (i.e. 'not having an essence', (therefore) 'no commitments' (i.e. arbitrarily riot for the sake of rioting, obey for the sake of obeying, f*ck for the sake of f*cking, belief for the sake of believing, kill for the sake of killing, etc)). — 180 Proof
IIRC, an existentialist would say you're not committed if you remain able to "abandon" them afterwards.Am I free to abandon my commitments? — Ludwig V
They are not commitments in the existential (e.g. "leap-of-faith") sense.If so, how are they authentic and essential?
You are free to "leap" but not free of the consequences (i.e. falling).If not, how am I free?
This is called "passive nihilism" or "bad faith".I'm not even clear what is wrong with being inauthentic, if that's what I choose to be sometimes.
IIRC, one cannot "choose" bad faith since bad faith consists in the denial of free choice (i.e. commitment) such as "What can I do? Shit happens. I can't do anything about this" etc ... Bad faith means conformity, or banality, and passivity over agency – not a "reason" or "choice" but rationalization instead.The idea of bad faith suggests a reason, but a moral one, which means it can be a choice.
There are the modes of being, so we need to understand, not only the three modes, but what they are modes of? — Ludwig V
We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three — Ludwig V
"Constitutive" is an interesting idea here. Aristotle draws a distinction (I don't have a reference ready to hand) between components of something that have an independent existence and can actually be separated out - laid on a bench beside each other, for example - and components that cannot be separated out, except "in thought". So, we can think of a single shape as both convex or concave, and we cannot think of a concave shape, without also thinking of a convex shape. I can see the relationship between existence and Dasein in the latter way rather than the former. Does that capture what you are saying? — Ludwig V
What I find much more helpful is his conceptions of Ready-to-hand and Present-at-hand and some of his remarks about rivers, bridges, temples in a landscape. Yet even there, I have difficulty. I don't quite see why everything that exists must be one or the other. — Ludwig V
Nonetheless, if you describe what Heidegger presents as a description, you allow the question of truth or falsity to arise. — Ludwig V
We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three
— Ludwig V
Not really. Had Kant said “being” (instead of existence) is not a real predicate, Heidegger may have agreed — Arne
I suggest it would be more helpful to describe him as presenting an interpretation — Ludwig V
Heidegger’s modes of being are not intended for organizing the universe. Instead, they are intended to capture the manner by which entities come at us. If I am on my morning walk and I look down and happen to see a stone, then the stone is coming at me as a present-to-hand entity. On the other hand, if a skunk is coming my way and I see that same stone, it might come at me as a ready-to-hand entity that I can throw toward the skunk in the hope he scurries off. — Arne
Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone? — ENOAH
Heidegger is describing how the stone shows up for Dasein as — Arne
Anger is indeed impatient, and that is my born-in failing, I'm afraid. Challenge and impatience. Socrates, my brother from another mother, would relate I think. 'Men of Athens ...'All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled. — Ludwig V
No, indeed, quite the opposite. I am the one saying they are in fact so multivalent that fear and logic alone, our chosen religion of the day, IS NOT, and never really was, the key way. I in fact underscore the three paths that together must be balanced to yield the fourth way, wisdom. And as this is a philosophy site, where lovers of wisdom ostensibly congregate, I am hoping to find resonance.I'm saying that concepts here are much more complicated and ambivalent than you recognize. — Ludwig V
Well, yes, meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Circular logic is all that there really is, after all. The beauty of that truth escapes the fear oriented though in many cases. That whole asymptotic thing leaves them scrambling for the nearest exit, a short-cut. Surely we are smart enough to beat objective truth, or at least those wise sages that counsel working with confidence and not the Crimson Permanent Assurance! What was that about hats again?Fear can underlie the search for order and certainty. But it can also produce panic and chaos. — Ludwig V
Only a non anger type would ever deign to say such a thing as you just said.What it means to say that "anger demands you stand to the mystery" is not clear to me. — Ludwig V
If you mean to say, well my dear fellow, precisely what I am saying in a less cool way (ha ha), you are there. That is to say DUH we need to use fear and anger to balance those pesky immoral desires. Self-indulgence is no way to go through life. Greed, more more more; money, power, and children! MOAR!Desire certainly can pull you towards perfection, but it can also pull you in the opposite direction - even against your better judgement. — Ludwig V
No it cannot. Order is NEVER freedom. It is quintessentially NOT freedom, so you are wrong there. Order is by definition a restriction, a law. If you mean to say that GOOD order ENABLES freedom, ok, then please start saying what you really mean. These halfway truths are the FAILED wisdom of the past. Better speech and writing on this THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of any day, is ... well ... a GOOD idea. Don't you agree?Order can be oppression and restriction, but it can also be opportunity and freedom. — Ludwig V
No, again, this is precisely incorrect. Moral truth, the GOOD, is objective. Thankfully that is the case. If it were not the universe would self-destruct in the smallest fraction of time it allows for. But, if you are right, and morality is subjective, then that is my 'Brevity model'. That model states that within that smallest possible time, is where we are. But even in THAT case, the only reason you and I can speak this way now is because right now, and since the dawn of time, morality has been objective. So, really, the no leg to stand on idea permutates all the way back to objective morality. On we go taking rank advantage of the relative stability of this universe and immorally pretending to subjective morality. Sigh ...I can understand evil as the absence or opposite of good, but what is good or evil depends on the context; the same is true of perfection. — Ludwig V
Oh, I like that one! It's tricky! Look at you!(And perfection can oppress and imprison just as surely as it can liberate). — Ludwig V
How foolish a statement is this nonsense!? Please, you're well past the point of embarrassment!From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V
Me either! Seems like it takes a little something past certainty to live right here.I'm not at all sure that wisdom, understanding and intelligence, though admittedly related, are clearly enough defined to be of use in whatever you are trying to say about them. — Ludwig V
Love is nothing more than the system including all of this.You remind me of Plato's journey of the soul. But he gave huge importance to love, which seems to be missing from your sketch. I miss it. — Ludwig V
I think the criteria of successful construing of the universe is the inverse of the direct realist slogan that the ‘facts don't care about our feelings'. The arbiter of validation is not the raw, independently existing facts of the world, but affectivity, in the sense that empirical truth and falsity is a function of whether and to what extent events are construed as consistent with our anticipations, which defines our purposes and values, and our knowing of this relative success or failure is synonymous with feelings such as anxiety, confusion and satisfaction. Validational evidence is just another way of describing the affectively felt assimilative coherence of the construed flow of events and therefore it is synonymous with feeling valence. Validated construing is neither a matter of forcing events into pre-determined cognitive slots, nor a matter of shaping our models of the world in conformity with the presumed independent facts of that world via the method of falsification. Rather, it is a matter of making and remaking a world; building, inhabiting, and being changed by our interactive relations with our constructed environment. It is our feelings which tell us whether we get it right or wrong, and by what criteria. — Joshs
I mean, as long as there is a vomitorium nearby and I can hurl up the remains of any brief attempt at digesting that word salad, and then teams of well weaned soothsayers sift and arrange the remains of that effort into a new faith that we then ignore, ... I agree.:up: I find this frame particularly rich and interesting. — Tom Storm
The arbiter of validation is not the raw, independently existing facts of the world, but affectivity, in the sense that empirical truth and falsity is a function of whether and to what extent events are construed as consistent with our anticipations, which defines our purposes and values, and our knowing of this relative success or failure is synonymous with feelings such as anxiety, confusion and satisfaction. — Joshs
OMG you call Sartre unreadable and you ... repeated the vomitous word salad of Joshs? What?This is something I'll mull over. Notice that in this account the truth isn't just about what's objectively real. It's also about how we feel about and intuit events. If something matches our expectations and values, we accept it as true. And our feelings, such as apprehension or satisfaction, signify whether things are in line with what we believe. I think this circle of interpretation is helpful to consider in the ceaseless debates about gods or politics.
What it says about existentialism I can't tell you as I find Sartre unreadable. — Tom Storm
I do very much understand what he is saying. It seems to be a trend these days that if people do understand and disagree then others claim they just don't understand. I get that such a position would be tempting.Seems like you don’t understand the point made. No matter. I can’t speak for him but Josh’s does not subscribe to notions of ‘objective truth’ and I would be sympathetic to this. I certainly don’t believe in perfection. — Tom Storm
And your statement is incomprehensible as well. If we are not motivated by perfection, by truth; ideas which are synonymous, then what is the source of these motivations? It cannot JUST be internal. There has to be resonance with the external. I would likewise say it cannot just be external. — Chet Hawkins
In a way, I agree. But the way I agree is expressed well enough by Milton for me to allow him to make my argument here for or with me:I have long suspected that we embrace ideas which appeal to us aesthetically and emotionally but we take them as facts. Sounds like you relish notions of perfection and objectivity, two ideas I don't find convincing. I recognize that humans love their absolutes and their god surrogates. No point arguing further since there's no common ground. :wink: — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.