On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone — 180 Proof
How do you know this to be true? — Truth Seeker
So you're more saying "these are not fundamental" -- which I hope you see we agree on. — Moliere
I was caught up on the notion that Sartre misinterprets Heidegger. — Moliere
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
WHAT is known of stillness — Kizzy
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
INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. — Chet Hawkins
eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen
you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans — Chet Hawkins
Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply. — Chet Hawkins
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
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
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
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
The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. — kindred
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
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
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
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
1. Mental states are identical to brain states. — RogueAI
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
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
What you will mostly find are over-long posts filled with too much information. — Joshs
Remember that you are a nobody online. You are part of "the stupid people" that most everyone thinks everyone else is. :) — Philosophim
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
Perhaps you are. I'm not ... — 180 Proof
I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". This is considered central to social organization: — Vera Mont
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
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
All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else. — Metaphyzik
"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
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
Is this the best possible social organization? — Vera Mont