Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

phoneutria wrote:

I'm anything you want me to be.

Satyr, she wants the D, man.

@Satyr

Then, you have your experiences and reasons for everything you do.
Your pride is your business, I'll say nothing more of it.
Except I'm not as proud as you.
All the aforementioned people, while intellectually, I think I'm superior to the majority of them, or at the very least, I have more potential than the majority of them, and am more interested in exploring reality, in all likelihood, personally, I don't see them as my inferiors, mainly, as I am painfully aware of my weaknesses.

That being said, I'm not an egalitarian, I acknowledge, and I acknowledge that I acknowledge gradations in everything, from physicality to mentality, and everything in between.
Sometimes superiority is innate, and some people are superior at this, some at that, and some may be overall superior, it's elementary.

That being said, I see things more equally than you do, not absolutely equal, but relatively, I do not see myself as part of any kind of elite.
I'm not opposed to elitism, and I recognize multiple forms of it, and am developing my own ideas and ideals, independently of yours, though I have drawn from you.

I have virtues and vices, I'm still relatively young, and I have a lot of self-improving to do, before I can consider myself as being part of any sort of elite, and even if I thought I was part of one, I can't imagine looking upon the majority of the human race as cattle.

I see a ton of value in most of what you have to say, or I wouldn't be here, I will not just write you off, like others have.
But I'm my own person, and I wouldn't be surprised, if you and I are too different to bridge the gap.

Hrodebert wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

I'm anything you want me to be.

Satyr, she wants the D, man.

My post meant nothing but my refusal to give him a serious answer, as I know from experience that he will ignore it and continue to argue against whatever nonsense he can conjure up.

phoneeee wrote:

I'm anything you want me to be.

Let's agree to disagree.

phoneeee wrote:

Hrodebert wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

I'm anything you want me to be.

Satyr, she wants the D, man.

My post meant nothing but my refusal to give him a serious answer, as I know from experience that he will ignore it and continue to argue against whatever nonsense he can conjure up.

Once more, her cleverness exposes my need.

Hrodebert wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

I'm anything you want me to be.

Satyr, she wants the D, man.

I'm an Omega...I'm not in her league.

Divergense wrote:

@Satyr

Then, you have your experiences and reasons for everything you do.
Your pride is your business, I'll say nothing more of it.
Except I'm not as proud as you.

Pride makes you act.

Divergense wrote:

I see a ton of value in most of what you have to say, or I wouldn't be here, I will not just write you off, like others have.

Writing me off is what I want them to do.

Never wrote you off. Dear, you know from our private communications that I hold you in high regard.
I am just done humoring your antics, for the time being.

phoneeee wrote:

Never wrote you off. Dear, you know from our private communications that I hold you in high regard.

I know, dear.
Did I say you wrote me off?

phoneeee wrote:

I am just done humoring your antics, for the time being.

Is that why you're more soft and less annoying?
I like.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

It was Mo's requested title for the thread in place of my suggested "Just Because" - which is short for hedonism, the main topic of this thread.

What part of where I explicitly rejected hedonism in my OP makes you think I am a hedonist? Why are you making this thread about hedonism, rather than what I wrote in my OP?

Why do you take "just because", and then chop off what comes before and after it in the sentence, and then go on to strawman and puke on it? Read the OP, I labelled it for you.

Divergence/phoneutria... will respond later... busy...

Lyssa wrote:


*Bottom-up Thinking:

Satyr wrote:

"Bottom-Up - begins with sensual stimuli, the apparent, the perceived, finds patterns in it and with this extrapolates larger rules and predicts future occurrences.

Top-Down - begins with a conclusion, the invisible, the unperceived, and then tries to incorporate the perceived within its premises....or tries to justify the projected with the perceived .
If and when it fails it does not discard the presumed, it simply dismisses the perceived as illusions or as too complex or too inconclusive to be taken into consideration, postponing judgment indefinitely."

vs.

Mo's Just-Because Secular Humanism wrote:

"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

On a similar note of positivity, we are all also the same with worms, and spiders, and bacteria.
I'm sure we can find some common-denominator to include ourselves is some collective bee-hive...just because...we "ought to"...its objectively moral.

I swear, stupidity is overwhelming.
I need to wash myself whenever I am brought am forced to come into contact with genetic feces like this.
He is "not like" me, this turd says...as if I want to associate myself with a piece of shit.
The very idea that he rejects me as his kind is supposed to be a punishment, a cost, for my insolence.

He now tells me the obvious, what I've been saying all along, as act of retribution.
It's the classic bovine psychological act of defensiveness... "you cannot belong to my herd, so there."
Notice how it contradicts the quote you posted.
But the turd only believes in word, ideological, differences...because we are all the same, in our core.

Bovine psychology...
Appearances are skin deep, superficial differences.
We are all the same at heart.
We differ only in words, not in substance.
Similarities are more important than differences - similarity does not follow divergence, it precedes it.


The more he talks the more that bovine-boy facade cracks.
This is where he retreats into his hole: "You did not understand me. It's not what I meant."

phoneutria wrote:

Mo told me all the way back in march that he is not a hedonist, and he did that over and over in this thread.
If you read honestly, you will see that he is not defending hedonism as a position that he holds, but he is arguing that lyssa's definition of hedonism is erroneous, and he is providing her with a correct one.

If I tell you the difference between a cigarette and a cigar, that does not imply that I smoke.

I can understand your need to protect the bovine-boy, but the way you are going by next month you'll have us believe that the Mooo is a race realist, and that he always was.
Maybe a year later you'll try to convince us that he was saying pleasure is a negation of need.

Mo is an "objectivist" at the Just-Because level, but a Relativist at the "superficial" level of culture.

He can be both.

Mo's Just-Because Secular Humanism wrote:

"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/quote]

"Deepest level" means the lowest-common-denominator.
Following this "logic" at an even deeper level life is not that much different from inanimate matter - we are all vibrating superstrings, on the deepest of deep levels.

So, we are nothing.

Mo wrote:

"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that."[/size]

That's as bottom-up as it gets. It is inductive reasoning to the core. --It begins with physiological data about what makes creatures such as us fare well, and uses that to form a conception of the good.

And obviously the claim in that paragraph is not that every human being is the same ...the same age, the same gender, the same race, or has the same blood type, body type, ailments, etc. I wasn't saying that milk is good for every human being, just because it's good for some---and that no humans are lactose intolerant, or whatever. But I do think the method works no matter who you are, because it is rooted in your body, and the conception of the good as the flourishing of your nature. -That 'good' will be the same for anyone, even when it generates different action guides for different contexts.

So rather than answer why you think I'm a hedonist, or why you cut off both sides of "just because" and then puke, or why you think contradicting yourself is perfectly ok... this is what I get. Niice.

Btw, I'm not a relativist at any level.

You know what the epitome of Top-Down thinking would be? To take a general abstraction, ignoring individuals, and then rant based on that general abstraction to particular individuals. It doesn't even matter what I say to Satyr, he's not concerned with individuals. He starts straight at the top, and every particular must fit the mold he already has. Like slotting people into categories. And if it doesn't, you get what you get here.... puke, and none of it ever justified. No argument. No reasoning. Just declarative sentences, none of which actually fit. Oh well.

Satyr wrote:

You might think I should spend hours respectfully responding to morons coming at me with the same crap I faced half a decade ago, in this endless repetition of the same...but I have more interesting things to do.
Like use them as toys.

Satyr wrote:

I need to wash myself whenever I am brought am forced to come into contact with genetic feces like this.

"I play with toys... no I'm not a hedonist, I just like forcing myself to play in feces... and I call that "an interesting thing to do'"

Ah, I see...I am the hedonist.
In a few months I'll be the altruistic egalitarian, and you the race realist.
Why not?...just because.

My motives for playing with genetic feces, like you, should not concern you.
A farmer needs fertilizer to plant his crop.
Your brain-dead decaying corpse, is perfect.

Notify us when you have something interesting to say.
Underline it just in case I miss it in all the crap you say by not saying it.

Mo wrote:

Mo wrote:

"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that.

That's as bottom-up as it gets. It is inductive reasoning to the core. --It begins with physiological data about what makes creatures such as us fare well, and uses that to form a conception of the good.

And obviously the claim in that paragraph is not that every human being is the same ...the same age, the same gender, the same race, or has the same blood type, body type, ailments, etc. I wasn't saying that milk is good for every human being, just because it's good for some---and that no humans are lactose intolerant, or whatever. But I do think the method works no matter who you are, because it is rooted in your body, and the conception of the good as the flourishing of your nature. -That 'good' will be the same for anyone, even when it generates different action guides for different contexts.

So rather than answer why you think I'm a hedonist, or why you cut off both sides of "just because" and then puke, or why you think contradicting yourself is perfectly ok... this is what I get. Niice.

Btw, I'm not a relativist at any level.

You know what the epitome of Top-Down thinking would be? To take a general abstraction, ignoring individuals, and then rant based on that general abstraction to particular individuals. It doesn't even matter what I say to Satyr, he's not concerned with individuals. He starts straight at the top, and every particular must fit the mold he already has. Like slotting people into categories. And if it doesn't, you get what you get here.... puke, and none of it ever justified. No argument. No reasoning. Just declarative sentences, none of which actually fit. Oh well.

When you are stating that good and bad should be stopped at the common denominator of what is regarded as humanity [a hedonistic convenience], and you are also stating that good and bad "ought not to" be evaluated at the "superficial" level of culture, you are, doing a "just-because" *because you believe culture is superficial and renders good/bad Relativistic. You think good/bad is relative to culture and therefore the 'Objective' good/bad should stop at the Utilitarian l.c.d. level of humanity.
Your Relativism did not just occur in that issue, but also when you claimed Master-value and Hedonism is the same by simply replacing pleasure with pain! :

1.

Satyr wrote:

"Moooooooo wrote: One person can say that life is suffering/pain, and that pleasure is just the reduction in degree of suffering/pain. Another person can say that life is health/pleasure, and that pain is just the reduction in degree of health/pleasure. The difference is just an emotional/psychological one, not a conceptual one.
"Your “master value” is just code for “hellenic asceticism” ---which, Epicurus as an example, is hedonism."

And using the bovine logic, Jew is also Greek, and pain is pleasure, and morality is hedonism, and asceticism is hedonism...and if you say otherwise there is a psychological reason...not an objective one.

For this retard saying life is an exception and it requires great effort, struggle to maintain itself, is the same as saying death is an exception and it takes great effort to maintain itself.
Everything is reversible for the Nihilist, because the world is not referred to...but only the psyche, the feelings, the noumenon, the abstraction...corrupted by fear, the coward must flip it all on its head."

2.

Satyr wrote:

"Mooooooo wrote: Some truths do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. For example, all analytical truths (i.e., statements that are true just by the meaning of the terms). E.g., “All bachelors are unmarried men”.

By the gods you are a retard.
Imbecile, marriage is a human construct.
There is no bachelorhood, or marriage, outside human skulls.
Marriage is an artifice, an idea.

Suffering<>NEED<>Pleasure are not human constructs.

Moron, 1+1=2 because you've already accepted 1 as self-evident...when, in fact, it does not exist outside your skull, except in it as a symbol.
Similarly, you nit-wit....justice, morality, all human concepts with no meaning outside human brains.
Humanity as some asexual concept is also a nihilistic construct...

You live in a self-referential, world of words (codes)...a true nihilist, and Judeo-Christian buffoon."

3.

Satyr wrote:

"Mooooooo wrote: You don’t need to examine the world, or any evidence, or anything outside of that claim itself, to justify the truth of that claim---it is its own justification. "Pleasure is good" is an analytical truth.

You do need to reference reality, you idiot, if your motive is objectivity, lucidity, clarity, honesty...but if your motive is to hide, to cower away, to redefine the world so you are saved from it, like idiot nihilistic cowards do, then you can indulge in the easy method of calling everything that you like "good" and everything you do not like "bad"."

4.

Satyr wrote:

"Shit for Brains wrote: Some values simply do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. That’s not circular, that’s foundational.

No need for justification, like for morality, or for pleasure.'
It is so "just because it is so". "

5.

Satyr wrote:

"Shit for Brains wrote: No, not quite. Something has more or less value only in relation to another, but if something has value, it is simply because the world and your physiology is a certain way, rather than not.

And this "certain way" is set in stone, and not changing as you witness it all, making all value judgments circumstantial.
...A universe of fluidity founded on a rock, a static thingness.
Not that circumstances are changing, along with everything else, making all judgments comparisons, but that some concepts are universal absolute TRUTHS....frozen in time/space, or existing in the non-existent outside space/time.

And he need not justify this, because it is itself its own justification...like God is His own Creator - God justifies God."

6.

Lyssa wrote:

"Mo wrote: Any normative evaluation (e.g., "good or bad") that is taken from descriptive facts about a creature relies on the notion that that creature has some purpose built into its physiology...
Any particular thing that is valuable is valuable “just because” of this relation between what you are, and the world. That is where the foundational WHY question about value ends.

"Knowing Thyself" is a be-coming,... a continuous looking back that does not end in some "built-in purpose" - That, would be a nihilism.
To think, one is born already with a purpose is an immanence-nihilism, like transcendence-nihilism is to believe like the Xt., one is born with God's purpose, etc.

What could be said here, is one is born with a "potential", not a "purpose", and so... "Knowing Thyself" is never a complete or absolute process, and so the potential in interaction with the world is always in a becoming...
Claiming "Just Because" I am built this way and therefore this is what I must value assumes an absolute immanent purpose (given your analogy with the watch above), and therefore a sheer nihilism, and the arrogance similar to a Xt. with his inflated ego, believing he is God's purpose and unsacrificiable (hence nihilistic ideals of equality, pacifism, liberalism, etc.)
The immanence-arrogance that one "knows" one's built-in purpose,,, that consciousness of who one is has been pre-determined instead of consciousness emerging as an Ordering tool in reaction to entropy, implies never having to explore back (consciousness is a looking backward), or engage in any philosophy at all, in the comfort, that the explanation "just because" suffices.

Nietzsche wrote: "Toward a critique oj the herd virtues.- Inertia operates. ...in the sense of truth. What is true? Where an explanation is given which causes us the minimum of spiritual effort." [N., WTP, 279]

"Just because" can only "describe", not "explain" value-standards.

Nietzsche wrote: "That "heredity," as something quite unexplained, cannot be employed as an explanation but only to describe and fix a problem." [WTP, 645]

You, are talking about ignoring you, and Satyr being top-down? - Satyr was after your explanation non-stop for 3! bloody months. He even asked you to pick on one point and challenge him with it, to which You cowardly retorted by calling him an attention-seeker.

I dont want to repeat and want to spare you all the name-callings I have called you, since you had made clear you can't handle my blunt monstrosity, and also since they still hold all the more with this post, showing you a Hypocrite, Cowardly, Liar again.
Because, although you keep mentioning the cutting off of just-because on both ends, your OP not being addressed, etc. etc.,, on the very first page, he's already addressed the hedonism in your Objectivist Morality and why, your taking Humanity as your "bottoms" base value and anthropomorphizing the world as your standard of 'objectivity' is nihilistic as it pauses the infinite regress.

Why your position is = a just-because = a hedonism, was addressed in all pages of this thread. Every single point.

Is such a name gained by such pretentiousness worth any salt?


Tell me, you try to humilate him over game-theory by name-dropping Bentham, when Bentham himself was arguing for one,,, and it doesn't matter that you showed no grit nor good manners nor any courage to acknowledge your errors, but "you" continue to say You don't want to be like him?? Tell me, what makes you better than him?

Tell me, since you dont believe in abs. good/evil, what 'positive' facets do you see in Satyr? Or is he beyond the scope of humanity where only, to you, good/bad hold meaning - in other words, is he Inhuman in your eyes?

Tell me, why did you say "Heidegger is an Idiot" - and simply ignored answering that question. Is that you puking with an empty declaration?

Tell me, what do you think of yourself, if not a hedonist? What are you?

Tell me, being a Master-psychologizer of others, can you also perform a self-diagnosis on why you pretend not to understand, why you evade, why you lie, and why you are the way you are? Can you make yourself understood?

Lyssa wrote:

When you are stating that good and bad should be stopped at the common denominator of what is regarded as humanity [a hedonistic convenience]

No: I said that our conception of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ should be informed by data about your physiological nature, which is the common denominator of any physical creature. That doesn’t mean that all creatures are the same, only that the method would work the same for any of them.

Quote :

because you believe culture is superficial and renders good/bad Relativistic.

Yes: if you ground morality in culture, then you are a relativist... a cultural relativist. Is there something you want a response to in 1 to 6? –I stand behind everything I said there, and it should be obvious to you why the responses to me are bullshit.

Quote :

Tell me, you try to humilate him over game-theory by name-dropping Bentham, when Bentham himself was arguing for one,,,

Bentham is an example of a hedonist who accounts for consequences more than 5 minutes in the future, which you denied.

Quote :

Tell me, why did you say "Heidegger is an Idiot" - and simply ignored answering that question. Is that you puking with an empty declaration?

I think Heidegger is an idiot in the same way that I think Mario Mendoza is a shitty baseball player. Compared to other players in the major leagues, he was shit. And compared to other “major league” famous philosophers, Heidegger is shit. That’s an opinion. (Feel free to tell me about why he should be remembered in any canon). But recognize that it’s nobody’s job to tell you why someone isn’t brilliant; it’s your job to tell others why he is. That's your burden of proof, not mine.

That said, I think Heidegger’s entire project of “fundamental ontology” is borderline incoherent metaphysics. IOW, he wants to avoid the distinctions of traditional ontology, like subject-object, realist-idealist, and I think he fails at that. --Those conceptual distinctions being basic and entrenched in our understanding of the world. You can’t just throw them off as easily as he tries to, in Being and Time. I think he covers over that incoherence by obfuscation, like inventing new words that don’t refer to anything intelligibly interesting. Like Dasein. Dasein is a being for whom Being is an issue. Replace 'dasein’'with person, and 'Being' with the nature of reality, and you have the standard/typical question that he’s going to answer what the meaning of life is. But since Being and Time---his magnum opus---is only half finished, he never actually does. In between, what you get is some phenomenology. Next to Plato/Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, and others in the western canon, he looks insignificant. If that's my own ignorance, then correct it by explaining what you see in Heidegger.

Quote :

Tell me, what do you think of yourself, if not a hedonist? What are you?

Read the OP.

Quote :

Tell me, being a Master-psychologizer of others, can you also perform a self-diagnosis on why you pretend not to understand, why you evade, why you lie, and why you are the way you are? Can you make yourself understood?

I haven’t lied, or evaded. You have. Your name-calling is empty, like your head.

luv wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

When you are stating that good and bad should be stopped at the common denominator of what is regarded as humanity [a hedonistic convenience]

No: I said that our conception of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ should be informed by data about your physiological nature, which is the common denominator of any physical creature. That doesn’t mean that all creatures are the same, only that the method would work the same for any of them.

No; that's you abstracting the conception of good/bad within the human environment, and does not touch deriving value-standards outside human systems and life at large. The limitations of my reality and my good/bad does not limit reality at large. Subject-dependent standards are not objective standards. Just because my physiology may render me incapable of affirming something as valuable to me or me as an abstracted humanity, does not render something bad on that account. Your error is to conflate human being with human be....ing...  and arrest the infinite regress. Humanity is a human conception, while the human is always a be......ing......   a flow,,, and therefore any conception of good/bad from a subject-dependent perspective of a common humanity is a nihilistic detaching of the human being with his be....ing....
Are you with yourself? I still have my high hopes riding on you...

Quote :

Quote :

because you believe culture is superficial and renders good/bad Relativistic.

Yes: if you ground morality in culture, then you are a relativist... a cultural relativist.

Why is culture a superficial level? When you state the conception of good/bad is evaluated from a common denominator of humanity exhibiting similarities, then given even culture is like a physiological organism, I can say every cultures tend to exhibit some common pattern that I can abstract to a common denominator and call for cultural-subject-dependency for my conception of good/bad. At this rate, I can always find a culture and some common denominator till everything is reduced to the same similarity of nothingness. Step outside of yourself already.

Quote :

Is there something you want a response to in 1 to 6? –I stand behind everything I said there, and it should be obvious to you why the responses to me are bullshit.

What is obvious to me is your learning upgrade in how you now have begun to be a Con-voluter as well, and replying as if it was not YOU who raked up this thread again to prove some point? I want a response?? HA  

Quote :

Quote :

Tell me, you try to humilate him over game-theory by name-dropping Bentham, when Bentham himself was arguing for one,,,

Bentham is an example of a hedonist who accounts for consequences more than 5 minutes in the future, which you denied.

And I still say 5 or 50 doesn't make a difference as long as the end goal is the same, and you deflecting my accusation of you with some tit-for-tat is not going to change your tat.

Quote :

Quote :

Tell me, why did you say "Heidegger is an Idiot" - and simply ignored answering that question. Is that you puking with an empty declaration?

I think Heidegger is an idiot in the same way that I think Mario Mendoza is a shitty baseball player. Compared to other players in the major leagues, he was shit. And compared to other “major league” famous philosophers, Heidegger is shit. That’s an opinion.

What is idiotic is your analogy and your nihilistic hedonism showing through yet again. A sporstman is evaluated according to the ends the sport is defined by. Philosophy is un-ending, as it is the subject asking the very question what makes a good sport... because life has no telos, no end, and only a hedonist would judge it within the comforting parameter of pleasure as the only ends. But because life is unending, philosophy is continuous experimentation where errors become valuable in themselves... errors become signposts adding to knowledge...  So even the worst philosopher is still always unfolding and contributing to knowledge
The merit/demerit of a Sportsman is defined by his game; a Philosopher defines his game, his terrain IS his experiment... which makes Heidegger precisely not an idiot, as his revaluation of questioning how to question was an experiment to preserve that freedom of experimentation itself.

Quote :

(Feel free to tell me about why he should be remembered in any canon).

Nietzsche genealogized morality; Heidegger genealogized geneaology. He unconcealed the ground of thinking itself. If truth is a parameter, then the conception of truth as the grounds through and upon which we think was re-thought by him.

I see why you have a problem with the Heidegger given your cultural relativism, since Dasein to him was a "thrownness" always entangled into the culture and history that participates in its be-ing;

"Dasein always finds itself "thrown" into a concrete situation and attuned to a cultural and historical context where things already count in determinate ways in relation to a community’s practice." [Guignon, ‘Introduction’, The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger]

But its because of this thrownness, deriving value-stds. for him starts with the exploration 'what does it mean to be authentic?'

Quote :

But recognize that it’s nobody’s job to tell you why someone isn’t brilliant; it’s your job to tell others why he is. That's your burden of proof, not mine.

Great. Philosophy forums can then become a standard site of simply passing opinions, and I can say anything I want and comfortably hide behind the label of right to opinion, a hedonistic "just because".

I have recognized you, don't worry.

Quote :

That said, I think Heidegger’s entire project of “fundamental ontology” is borderline incoherent metaphysics. IOW, he wants to avoid the distinctions of traditional ontology, like subject-object, realist-idealist, and I think he fails at that.

Does he? To address a subject that is always in flux is "avoiding" subject-object distinctions, or is he giving them "high definition" care-full with nuances?

Heidegger wrote:

"The essence of Dasein lies in its existence. Accordingly those characteristics which can be exhibited in this entity are not 'properties' present-at-hand of some entity which 'looks' so and so and is itself present-at-hand; they are in each case possible ways for it to be, and no more than that. . . . So when we designate this entity with the term 'Dasein', we are expressing not its 'what' (as if it were a table, house, or tree) but its Being." [Being and Time, 67]

To him, art and language bring forth being but do not constitute being as such, and so his metaphysics is not incoherent and 'throwing away' any distinctions:

Quote :

"For Heidegger, the central mystery is not the knowledge, but the Being, the existence. So that, he emphasizes the importance of understanding what is "to be" in the world and not "to know" it."

And in that sense,

Quote :

"For Heidegger, truth is first discovery (apophansis, “letting be seen”), and only secondarily and derivatively can it be conceived as correspondence or agreement (copula) between a subject and predicate (SZ 218-19/201).

The appearance of beings as they are in themselves is their truth. Heidegger formulates this in terms of the originary, historical manifestation of the concept of truth—its first revelation—to the Greeks: “The being-true of the logos as apophansis is aletheuein in the manner of apophainesthai: to let beings be seen in their unconcealment (discoveredness), taking them out of their concealment” (SZ 219/202).

Truth is thus a-letheia, the recovery of beings from the oblivion (lethe) of concealment. “Dis-covering” or “un-covering” the being of entities belongs to Dasein as a fundamental mode of being-in-the-world. We are thus always already “in the truth” (SZ 221/203), involved with it in various degrees of authenticity, insofar as we are ahead of ourselves, thrown into a world of significance. The fact that the meaningfulness of the world is always already there points to a historical dimension in every innerworldly encounter. That the meaning of the beings encountered in the world must accrue historically is a correlate of Heidegger’s ontological interpretation of temporality. For Heidegger, only an uncritical, and hence dogmatic, conception of time thinks in terms of an ontic succession of “moments.” Dasein’s projective nature (equiprimordial with thrownness) opens a horizon of possibility for beings to manifest in novel, yet “fateful,” ways (especially Dasein’s own potentiality-of-being, which grants authentic self-disclosure). In this sense, “truth” is a locution for a historical metaxys of presencing between past (thrownness) and future (projection). As such, truth initially has nothing to do with propositions, correctness, or logic, as traditionally conceived. Rather, primordial truth as discovery (thrown-projective being-in-the-world) yields the discoveredness (the presencing of innerworldly beings) which allows derivative propositional “truth” to be correct or incorrect."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"Propositional truths" and dis/covering yourself as you go along like Odysseus' needs skills and care-full-ness that the ancients called metis, else what Heidegger suggests here can easily slip into the nihilistic postmodern mode of constant re-invention with no sense of self.

Quote :

--Those conceptual distinctions being basic and entrenched in our understanding of the world. You can’t just throw them off as easily as he tries to, in Being and Time. I think he covers over that incoherence by obfuscation, like inventing new words that don’t refer to anything intelligibly interesting. Like Dasein. Dasein is a being for whom Being is an issue. Replace 'dasein’'with person, and 'Being' with the nature of reality, and you have the standard/typical question that he’s going to answer what the meaning of life is. But since Being and Time---his magnum opus---is only half finished, he never actually does. In between, what you get is some phenomenology. Next to Plato/Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, and others in the western canon, he looks insignificant. If that's my own ignorance, then correct it by explaining what you see in Heidegger.

Is that what he was trying to do? Your inattentiveness did a hat-trick.

Quote :

"Being and Time does not undermine the subject/object dichotomy by trying to advance the incredible thesis that the self really exists in a continuous and unbroken unity with its world. Instead, Heidegger seeks to account for the fact that our fundamental, practical engagement with our worlds can easily break down in ways that generate the perspective the subject/object dichotomy describes. Most of the time, we encounter ourselves as immediately and unreflectively immersed in the world of our concerns rather than as standing over against an “external” world of objects. Just think, for example, of the way you ordinarily encounter a hammer when you are hammering with it, or a pen while you are writing with it, a bike while riding it, a car while driving it, or even, say, a freeway interchange as you drive over it for the umpteenth time. This all changes, however, when our practical engagement with the world of our concerns breaks down. When the head flies off the hammer and will not go back on (and no other hammering implement is available to complete the task at hand); when the pen we are writing with runs out of ink (and we have no other); when our bike tire goes flat or our car breaks down in the middle of a trip; when we find ourselves standing before an artwork that we cannot make sense of; or, in general, when we are still learning how to do something and encounter some unexpected difficulty which stops us in our tracks—in all such cases what Heidegger calls our ordinary, immediate “hands-on” (zuhanden) way of coping with the world of our practical concerns undergoes a “transformation” (Umschlag) in which we come to experience ourselves as isolated subjects standing reflectively before a world of external objects, which we thereby come to experience as standing over against us in the mode of something objectively “on hand” (vorhanden) (BT 408-9/SZ 357-8 ).

In other words, Heidegger does not deny the reality of the subject/object relation but, rather, points out that our experience of this subject/object relation derives from and so presupposesa more fundamental level of experience, a primordial modality of engaged existence in which self and world are united rather than divided. Heidegger believes that modern philosophy's failure to solve the problem of skepticism about the external world shows that those who begin with the subject/object divide will never be able to bridge it subsequently (BT 249–50/SZ 205–6). He thus insists that this more primordial level of practically engaged, “hands-on” existence—in which self and world are unified—must be the starting point of any description of ordinary human experience that seeks to do justice to what such experience is really like, a phenomenological dictum Heidegger insists should also govern our attempts to describe our meaningful encounters with works of art."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Quote :

Tell me, what do you think of yourself, if not a hedonist? What are you?

Read the OP.

You are a hedonist.

Quote :

Quote :

Tell me, being a Master-psychologizer of others, can you also perform a self-diagnosis on why you pretend not to understand, why you evade, why you lie, and why you are the way you are? Can you make yourself understood?

I haven’t lied, or evaded.

   you sound luvly.

Quote :

You have. Your name-calling is empty, like your head.

I never claimed to be a head-person, but a heart-person.
Better an empty head, than an empty heart like you...  because if you knew how to feel, you wouldn't have asked me 'why I toy with maggots?' esp. after I told you on the telos thread with the example of the cheetah, I derive no fun toying with weaklings.
If you knew how to feel, you would have understood Satyr is no slave or monster for toying with the weak; pressure makes some and breaks some. He's a selector. Didn't N. say, that which is falling, should also be pushed? Was N. into cheap thrills?

I have no interest in convincing another about what to think, but a philosophical excursion into pointing you out to "how" you think...  a hedonist only sees what he wants to see...

Better also an empty brain, than a half-brain. The half and half spoil it all...
If you were not so half-brained, you would have not let phoneutria poison you. Did I toy with you like she told you I was and you believed her? Like I wasn't the one who didn't lead you on making up stories I was from Virginia when I easily could have...?

Like you weren't closer to the devil than I thought and I was being devilish? Evil me.

Dont forget to thank phoneutria again for saving you from my attempted sexually victimizing you. After that,

"Shites and giggles" - look it up.

I wont be responding to you anymore till you can offer a diagnosis on Satyr - 'am not interested in your opinion or why you don't want to be like him, but an objective diagnosis of him. Get it?

quid pro quo luv.

Take your sweet time; I need a vacation.