The problem is not liberal society and it is not primate behaviour, instinct genes, testosterone, or what women are attracted to. The problem is men behaving badly. Let's stop saying it's 'natural' and also stop saying it's acceptable or that women like it really. — unenlightened

(Y) Well, this is it, really. Even further still, there is a constant assumption that I lack intelligence, undermining my capacity, disrespecting me and attempting to reinforce an assertive power over my quiet nature. I am attractive, so I must be stupid. Just shut the fuck up and take your clothes off. When I was studying my PhD, my supervisor went on the attack because I refused to adopt a Marxist angle in my research - your methodology is too feminine - and the IR department itself had appalling stats in relation to female academics. When I was at work, I had a younger man bully me with indirect threats in his vicious attempt to try and gain authority over me, despite the fact that he lacked the skills and character appropriate for such a role; power is imagined.

And, do you know what I did? I tried helping him secure that very role. Why? To save myself from the hurt he was inflicting on me emotionally. Then you look at all those girls wearing tonnes of make-up, avoiding an education or a career, and taking selfies or trying to be "beautiful" and that is what they are trying to do too, save themselves. It is almost ideological. Women who return to their violent husbands are experiencing psychological and emotional trauma and violence - whether gender-based or not - need not only be physical.

I really don't see how anthropocentrism can ever be avoided. — t0m

(Y)

Charming. Unfortunately, you're not actually being funny, but that is the problem with people who have no sense of humour.

For the sake of brevity, there is a temporal link between Dasein and this anthropocentrism that he seeks to avoid, which is where Carmen' position is somewhat interesting. Derrida said this in The Ends of Man. "We see that Dasein, though not man, is nevertheless nothing other than man... a repetition of the essence of man permitting a return to what it was before [on this side of] the metaphysical concepts of Humanitas."

Thanks, so as I said about authenticity and temporality, which is why Carmen' position inevitably destroys the possibilities that follow.

Oh sorry, that's what Derrida said. But of course, you know better.

Yes, but it doesn't refer to the humanness of existence. It is true that only the human can be Dasein, as far as we know, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon of Dasein is tied to the humanity of man. — Agustino

On another angle, though, there is this unavoidable humanism left in Dasein, this 'essence' despite what Heidegger imagines. What is left is 'man' or 'woman' or a kind of reappropriation. I fear there really is no escape.

Yes, he problematized the question of the meaning of being. That's prior to the possibility of any sort of anthropocentrism, and by reducing it to anthropocentrism and humanism you destroy that priority. — Agustino

I get what you are saying, but this is the dilemma that people face, the unique position we are in and this collision enables us to respond or react, making us different to any other species. That anthropocentrism only becomes displaced the moment we recognise authentically Dasein.

Yes, but it doesn't refer to the humanness of existence. It is true that only the human can be Dasein, as far as we know, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon of Dasein is tied to the humanity of man. — Agustino

Ok, that makes sense.

I don't think this is a faithful reading of Heidegger at all. Heidegger would be quite appalled by the humanism and anthropocentrism that emanates from that. Like for example: — Agustino

I think the only thing appaling at this point is the assumption that you know what Heidegger would be feeling. Anthropocentrism? Are you saying that Heidegger is not talking about being?

That's not what Heidegger meant. Dasein is more fundamental than merely human or person or any such a designation. — Agustino

So, Dasein is not existence? Yeah, this is getting a bit awkward.

Not sure how you intended your entry into the conversation in terms of tone, but I'll assume and hope it was friendly. — t0m

It was meant to be nothing but a statement of fact.

That said, I googled and found on the first page Dreyfus criticizing Taylor Carmen's view of death or dying as the closing down of Dasein's possibilities. If memory serves, I just saw that idea in Innwood's Heidegger dictionary last night, too. As you may know, Kojeve fused Marx and Heidegger in his famous lectures. And of course Feuerbach, a German philosopher, may have influenced Heidegger, especially as a critic of Hegel and metaphysics generally. — t0m

Ok, kind of sounds interesting but you do need to actually hone in on Carmen, methinks.

Because, to them, philosophy is really just a priori, there is no idealistic solution to make everyone all cheerful again.

Heidegger. :-|

What are you on about?

The concept of death or inexistence is closely linked to his views on authenticity and self-awareness; we are capable of knowledge, the conscious experience of ourselves, which inevitably means an awareness of inexistence or death, the futility of our efforts. Modernity has provided the landscape that enables us to escape this awareness of our mortality and what that means is that we conversely are not conscious of 'being' or existence either, somewhat moulded to the material world and lack authenticity. Heidegger thus questioned ‘being’ from an ontological angle; what is ‘being’ and is it an awareness of our own existence? Who we are is determined by this examination of ourselves and thus Dasein is an ‘essence’ rather than a property. An inauthentic Dasein, what most are like today where they assume they are conscious of death and have an individuality, when really they are not but are merely mindlessly following, is caused by a subjective state of Furcht or fear.

Authenticity is somewhat temporal, that we can anticipate death, we can recollect or envision, whereas inauthenticity is making things present and forgetting and this fear is the causal roots for the latter' subjective attitude (as in, why the inauthentic do not actually confront death); Dasein is basically a person who is able to recognise themselves as a subject authentically, to genuinely distinguish themselves as separate from the material world of modernity where they are thus able to distinguish the difference between their feelings or attitudes directed to the material world as being fundamentally flawed.

Don't steal my attention-seeking thunder, although a visual of you wearing nothing but my purple socks, my fluffy white blanket as a cape with a pair of novelty springy-eye glasses as you skip down the street singing zip-a-dee-doo-dah may just be as entertaining as this book.

Although, your book will be my next. (Y)

You nasty little pastie.

Besides, if we did a comparative of post-quality, then post-modernism it is given that streetlight is a portal to the mysterious realms of awesomeness.

Not sure, because I don't make judgements until I actually read it, O judgemental one. :P

That makes more sense. My arguments about this not being very probable still stand, but I get what you mean now, and I do think it's possibly a worthy goal, if you're willing to face the potential burn out. — Noble Dust

I have been speaking to my sister and we have not spoken for many years and my time spent with my siblings were really them bullying me into believing that I was very ugly that I actually came to believe it. I had a car accident and lost everything several years ago and everyone turned their back on me, but I pushed through the incredible difficulties (physical injury - could not walk properly for months - mental health and emotionally, financially, professionally and all while on my own), that I have now reached a point where I started my own small NGO that I still have a bit of work to do, moved up the ladder professionally, finished a Masters degree, travelled, working on a doco and became unapologetically happy. I refused to be defeated and above all I refused to give up on my faith in love, despite having none of it given to me (on the friggin contrary I can assure you). She has never admitted to being vicious or cruel to me, but this is what she wrote:

"Just know, I never thought of you as ugly. I always thought you were very beautiful and I envied your perfect nose. I remember I took a photo of you once and you saw it and accused me of keeping an ugly photo of you because I was cruel, but that was not true, I loved that photo because your kind eyes were shining through the picture and you looked so beautiful. You are a good and kind person and I understand that you have been treated unfairly for a long time. I hope you find the love you deserve. I have thought a lot about what you have been through with your health and accident and I am truly sorry that you had to go through that hell alone."

I think it is essential to articulate your pain and there are many methods in doing this, but forgiveness does not exist, rather it is a hope that something like what she has done will happen. It is a hope for the other to acknowledge your pain and the pain itself is really a lack of this acknowledgement. I get what you mean when you are saying that draining feeling, but conversely I fear your experience with your pastor is actually what has locked you to carry this assumption on mentorship. I refused to be defeated and became empowered enough to improve my circumstances independently and that is "speaking" or articulating to others my strength of character without having to say words. You can tell a genuinely good person through the fruits that they produce and it is why parables were spoken because confronting the truth is way too difficult for people because they almost automatically go on the defence. That is why leading by example is a form of communication.

I have never trusted anyone who follows, whether it is socially, religiously, politically, but I look at the decisions that they make, look at the people they choose to have in their lives, see what they find important and not important and make my assessment that way. It is not about spoon-feeding morals or upholding a false image, but simply never giving up on love, on kindness and friendship despite the lack thereof. Unconditional love is giving love, allowing others the opportunity to feel heard and they too start to listen to themselves before doing the same etc. That pastor is in denial, he has - like so many others - not reached this 'core' that I speak of and that is why the cycle continues.

When they reach that core, only then can they genuinely feel and thus apologise or fearlessly open the can of worms and face the music rather than fearfully shutting it away. You lead by example, yes, but you still maintain a firmness or resolve (such as turning your back or not allowing bad people to defeat you) and that is telling people something.

Oi, it's going to be cold tomorrow and I have a day off! That means my fat purple dance socks, over-sized XXL man-hoodie, fluffy white snuggly blanket and as much hot chocolate as I want while I read...



It arrived today :)

:D

What I'm saying is that you can't have access to that core; it's the very identity of the person built up over the years of their entire life. Being able to alter that would be like being able to change someone's mind on a philosophy forum. :P — Noble Dust

It is not his core that I want to access, that is impossible. What I'm trying to tell you is that I wanted to help him access his own core; love, or friendship and a mutual bond, enables empathy and trust, it enables them to communicate, to articulate, to feel and thus begin to consciously understand themselves and their place in the world. Despite him knowing so many people, having tonnes of close friends and even being in a relationship, he was profoundly lonely and I knew that. He didn't. That is why I cared so much, that this vicious exterior had this gentle little boy inside. I know what it is like being completely oblivious to how one really feels, but I learnt how to access this core by exploring my feelings, analysing my thoughts and behaviours and why I knew he was very similar to me.

But, again, I agree with you, his identity has become completely absorbed into this external reality of his, that his life, his thoughts, his decisions are no longer his own though he believes it completely. He cannot see that his escape from that loneliness is all wrong, that there is an alternate way and so there he will remain stuck. Even though he may have wanted to, his decision to go down this unique path would inevitably mean turning his back on this reality, on all these people that helped shape that reality and for what? For me? That is what is impossible, so I let go and moved on.

When a person accesses their own core, they become conscious of their wrongdoing and that enables forgiveness, it enables reconciliation.

I agree. Just be wary of becoming too impenetrable. — Noble Dust

I have learnt that, unfortunately only quite recently. My door has a security cable and chain, but at least I am now opening it and talking to people. I'll wait a bit before unlocking it completely.

The theme I'm getting here is a savior complex. Based on your anecdotes, you seem to want to save the people you come into contact with who have severe issues. I know that feeling. — Noble Dust

Yes, and no. The latter because there may perhaps be another subjective reason that consciously pretends to be motivated by an altruism when it is much more selfish then we make it out to be. Perhaps I wanted to believe that a bad person could change. I had a father who had similar behavioural problems and perhaps I unconsciously thought that if I am able to change him, then I could sustain a hope in the possibility of change in people like my father. Hope is powerful, both in a negative and positive way.

Another and perhaps a more plausible possibility is that I cared for him and thus became emotionally motivated to invest in an effort to help him the same way I helped myself as I truly felt I understood his condition. It was visually in my mind like a network but I was proven wrong in his case because he kept on hiding away and lying that it was just impossible to simply talk to him properly. As you say:

It would have required a super-human ability to change the core of someone's lifetime's worth of experiences. — Noble Dust

It is about accessibility. Had he been capable of being my friend, where we could have gone out for a coffee and talked, perhaps I may have been enabled with access to this core.

I don't think you can. Outside of just exemplifying moral behavior in a passive way. Which is always, eternally, an option to anyone. — Noble Dust

I have noticed how bad people feed on the misfortune of others, those that exhibit a lack of empathy in particular, as a way to contrast the superiority of their position, to make themselves appear to be fortunate and happy. While, eventually, the edifice of this self-deception crumbles and the reality is nothing but an underlying misery, they nevertheless either create problems in others or they despise those that are genuinely content and who do not need to contrast themselves with others. It just helps them prolong that self-deception.

It is not just exemplifying moral behaviour, but also taking care of yourself. I never accept handouts, I work really hard, I am healthy and strong and deeply content, together with holding strong convictions and integrity. You become impenetrable and that shapes a different understanding in this opposing ego.

What's the difference between "cognitive" and "reason" here? — Noble Dust

A brain and a mind.

We have a little community going here. Please describe how this works with it as an example. How do Foucault and Marx apply to the PF? If you don't consider this a community, give me another simple, down-home example. — T Clark

I'm not going to get caught in your slippery slope assertions, you have made me dizzy enough. I tried my best to explain political theory using sophomoric language and even still. I would prefer at this point to simply pat you on the head and say with a Scottish accent that'll do T Clark, that'll do. The OP is about forgiveness and reconciliation and I believe we came to this point as a way to explain how one can be influenced to believe in concepts that are not real or true. I think. As I said, you have made me dizzy.

And to think I said I admire your pugnacity. You're not supposed to use it against a delicate flower like me. I guess that's the way you do things in Australia. — T Clark

:D

Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility? — Hanover

Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense). My position is that a moderator should only concern him/herself with content without any bias (including political or religious) so that we, as a community on a forum, can learn how to communicate without relying on our ego or getting offended by those who disagree or are different to us. Indeed, I believe that it can promote psychological growth because forums and philosophy or the argumentative process therewith enables others to learn how to articulate themselves better. Without people who have different opinions, how can anyone improve?

It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. - Ghost in a Shell (the actual anime, not that rubbish hollywood crap)

That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to, yes, project 19th and 20th century political philosophies that developed in response to the industrial revolution onto human behavior that has been around for hundreds of thousands, millions, of years. — T Clark

If we are adapted by nature to receive virtues and are made perfect by habit, "power" is to advantageously utilise this nature of ours until we manipulate it to conform. If we did not have an evil nature - which I personally do not believe that we do - but that evil is a product of the material world, then ideology is a tool that communicates to the community what virtue is according to that ideology, which is thus accepted through habitus. Foucault' discourse or Marxist' superstructure is not "projecting" anything but rather assessing this process.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it is relevant in this context. — T Clark

The point is that your view of the world is limited. Just a head's up that there are wars, violence, crimes, genocide, but you can continue to forget that as you live in complete ignorance of reality.

How about

Oh, what? And here I was thinking I... anyway, I'm too sleepy to figure out humorous response.

The things I do for you.

People change. They can progress, begin to doubt their opinions, maybe - as I myself have proven - felt ashamed or guilt for being rude. I sometimes feel terrible when I am writing jokes in the shoutbox because I hold myself to such a high standard in real life. It is called being human, making mistakes, thinking without thinking and just having fun.

If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? I think moderation is about managing content, not people, unless they are really extreme (do you remember that weird dude in the old forum who hung out in the banned section posting some of the most random stuff)? We all have different opinions and sometimes it can be really frustrating having to deal with them, but that is what makes discussions interesting.

I believe that if there is tension somewhere, there is a strategy not being used, where there is no compassion neither is there a humbleness where one remembers that they themselves can be just as bad as the next person.

Who knows, you could have possibly become friends with Thanatos.

It never ceases to amaze me why you people persist in these futile exhibitions on subjects that have no end. Everybody will have a different opinion; political, all too political I say.

On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent. — Erik

Like this?

Pretty much THE common experience, considering the number of moronic women that exist out there... Smart women are a rare find bruv ... many women I can't tolerate for two seconds, much less for more >:O The brain the size of an almond ... :s But it's not just lack of intelligence... It's lack of intelligence combined with arrogance, pettiness, and pride that is the real problem. I've met some quite dumb women who were nevertheless enjoyable to be around simply because they were interesting people, who at least had some decency and humility. — Agustino

There is content that is abhorrent and there are people who do not agree with what you write or have a different attitude to a particular subject. I have never complained and I too have admitted to making errors even against Agustino, but I do agree with him that there is a leftist swing to this forum.

I WANT some right-wing action so that I can use my superior rhetoric skills that has since lied dormant being here, like that character on the old forum who started that racism thread and I went wild for about a month with 180proof trying to destroy that man' argument. You lot are a bunch of wimps.

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck. — Thorongil

According to your perspective, but of course, you are infallible?

Inside - we are built that way. We are endowed by our creator with certain inherent capabilities and behavioral and emotional tendencies. Everyone is not the same, but we are all human. And communities have their own characteristics. They're organic, they grow from the inside. They aren't imposed from the outside. It's not about power. — T Clark

This is just silly idealism and a profound ignorance of reality. No different to those privileged people whinging about the most superficial situations in their personal life, using emotional manipulation as they remain completely oblivious that the world is coming to an end. It is like me walking the streets of Mosul plucking daises singing he loves me, he loves me not as people are getting massacred around me. And then you have the audacity to say:

projecting your political ideology onto human nature — T Clark

Are you sure we are the ones "projecting" what human nature is? Reality is built on language, and ontology or epistemology are not some fluffy characteristics based on determined inherent tendencies but based your environment and how we communicate to one another. If there is anything determined, it is biological, cognitive. But meaning, interpretation that form emotional and behavioural attitudes don't just pop out of nowhere.

What is this "inside" you speak of? Are you saying everyone is the same? There is no such thing as violence, greed, egotism, pride but that they are the product of social cohesion?

My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative. — unenlightened

This is genius :B

Teaching them a lesson. (Y)

*slowly backs away*

Alright, maybe you're cool for admitting such a catastrophic truth, but it is surely awkward that you have made a connection with Hachem.

:-| That's just awkward.

Not sure if I should be worried that you know that.

I would recommend the Myth of Sisyphus to add to Nausea, and for a very different type of existentialism you could attempt Kierkegaard.

It is a subtle reference to my analogy. I hope that helps. Now, back to us.

Are we getting all Marxist?