"What Do I Do?"

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

[Fermionic]

Normally I help people in LI...?

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Fermionic

Normally I help people in LI...?

Is that a video game? confused

[Fermionic]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Fermionic

Normally I help people in LI...?

Is that a video game? confused

I sometimes think so.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Fermionic

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Fermionic

Normally I help people in LI...?

Is that a video game? confused

I sometimes think so.

Tell me all about it.

[Lesser Tile]

So in short, through lucid dreasming, you have somehow realized that you can transform REAL LIFE truth? Without you simply lying, try changing the truth that I don't (right now) have a million bucks. Impossible? Of course, it is.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

Welcome to the clouds of freedom; I hope you enjoy the burden of undeniable responsibility. There is much I will say, but most will have to wait until I get back from uni.

I am amused that you laughed so hard at Sartre denying the self was the self the other day though, as this is precisely what you are doing here. What you say here is just about the equivalent of Sartre's early philosophy where everyone got to choose their emotions, what they value, and consequently, what reality is(as one could decree that any object meant any other object). You are denying the axioms of identity, which constitutes the nature anything, the self, is necessarily the case.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Lesser Tile

So in short, through lucid dreasming, you have somehow realized that you can transform REAL LIFE truth? Without you simply lying, try changing the truth that I don't (right now) have a million bucks. Impossible? Of course, it is.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that truth is interpretive power. I can't deny that I in fact lack such interpretive power (am impotent). What lucid dreaming taught me is that I don't really desire to gain more interpretive power (truth) that I have; because I've already been able to live out every hedonistic fantasy I've wanted and now they don't interest me.

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

Welcome to the clouds of freedom; I hope you enjoy the burden of undeniable responsibility. There is much I will say, but most will have to wait until I get back from uni.

I am amused that you laughed so hard at Sartre denying the self was the self the other day though, as this is precisely what you are doing here. What you say here is just about the equivalent of Sartre's early philosophy where everyone got to choose their emotions, what they value, and consequently, what reality is(as one could decree that any object meant any other object). You are denying the axioms of identity, which constitutes the nature anything, the self, is necessarily the case.

I don't think this is an "existentialist" problem. I've read a bit of Heidegger and Sartre and they don't connect with me. I'm very bourgeois and "American," you know. It's a less profound problem than a crisis of being - just looking for something to do.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

Welcome to the clouds of freedom; I hope you enjoy the burden of undeniable responsibility. There is much I will say, but most will have to wait until I get back from uni.

I am amused that you laughed so hard at Sartre denying the self was the self the other day though, as this is precisely what you are doing here. What you say here is just about the equivalent of Sartre's early philosophy where everyone got to choose their emotions, what they value, and consequently, what reality is(as one could decree that any object meant any other object). You are denying the axioms of identity, which constitutes the nature anything, the self, is necessarily the case.

I don't think this is an "existentialist" problem. I've read a bit of Heidegger and Sartre and they don't connect with me. I'm very bourgeois and "American," you know. It's a less profound problem than a crisis of being - just looking for something to do.

Certainly "wanting something to do" needn't be framed in such a existentialist context(though the two are intertwined in some way. If you are wanting do do something, there is a particular value that you hold), but simply "wanting something to do" wasn't what lead me down the path of referring to Sartre. What lead me down that path was your description of your examinations of truth and it leading to a point where feel you could not find anything more to truth.

The reason you are satisfied in your examination is that you have hit the axiomatic wall of truth. A place where deductive reasoning cannot illuminate why something must be. In a similar vein to how Sartre examined objects and their relation to values, you are asking the same thing of reality: "Why must it be so?" and finding nothing to show why it must be so. This leads to a situation where you conclude that there can be no further reason why it must be so, making any given truth an imposition of will, an imposition of value; a decision to create truth because that is how you have defined it to be. You can't find any more to the nature truth because there is nothing more.

I suspect you don't connect with them to well because of your philosophical background. To them existence is a cornerstone, something which you, at least it seem from my discussions with you, are highly wary of, so I would expect you not to be too fond of them, even if you are effectively finding the same conclusion and wrapping it up in different discourse due to errors.

As for what do you do, the only answer to that is that you do something. That you banish doubt about what is important and define that it is true that there is something of value that you must do. If, for example, you want to help people, then you must consider that there is an issue that people need help with and that you have the capacity to help them. Find something that interests you(this is where those nasty monsters of being impotent in your capacity to define reality and determinism can be handy, as such things may prescribe that something must be done to maintain a particular state that you value).

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

Welcome to the clouds of freedom; I hope you enjoy the burden of undeniable responsibility. There is much I will say, but most will have to wait until I get back from uni.

I am amused that you laughed so hard at Sartre denying the self was the self the other day though, as this is precisely what you are doing here. What you say here is just about the equivalent of Sartre's early philosophy where everyone got to choose their emotions, what they value, and consequently, what reality is(as one could decree that any object meant any other object). You are denying the axioms of identity, which constitutes the nature anything, the self, is necessarily the case.

I don't think this is an "existentialist" problem. I've read a bit of Heidegger and Sartre and they don't connect with me. I'm very bourgeois and "American," you know. It's a less profound problem than a crisis of being - just looking for something to do.

Certainly "wanting something to do" needn't be framed in such a existentialist context(though the two are intertwined in some way. If you are wanting do do something, there is a particular value that you hold), but simply "wanting something to do" wasn't what lead me down the path of referring to Sartre. What lead me down that path was your description of your examinations of truth and it leading to a point where feel you could not find anything more to truth.

The reason you are satisfied in your examination is that you have hit the axiomatic wall of truth. A place where deductive reasoning cannot illuminate why something must be. In a similar vein to how Sartre examined objects and their relation to values, you are asking the same thing of reality: "Why must it be so?" and finding nothing to show why it must be so. This leads to a situation where you conclude that there can be no further reason why it must be so, making any given truth an imposition of will, an imposition of value; a decision to create truth because that is how you have defined it to be. You can't find any more to the nature truth because there is nothing more.

I suspect you don't connect with them to well because of your philosophical background. To them existence is a cornerstone, something which you, at least it seem from my discussions with you, are highly wary of, so I would expect you not to be too fond of them, even if you are effectively finding the same conclusion and wrapping it up in different discourse due to errors.

As for what do you do, the only answer to that is that you do something. That you banish doubt about what is important and define that it is true that there is something of value that you must do. If, for example, you want to help people, then you must consider that there is an issue that people need help with and that you have the capacity to help them. Find something that interests you(this is where those nasty monsters of being impotent in your capacity to define reality and determinism can be handy, as such things may prescribe that something must be done to maintain a particular state that you value).

I don't think that I take issue with the existentialist notion of existence (Existenz) so much as the idea of "being" conceived as self-subsistent objects that are self-identical. This is exactly the sort of thing Heidegger criticizes as well. It's more the conclusions - Sartre does not move me to embrace my absolute freedom, nor does Heidegger inspire me to rise above my inauthenticity. My goals are less lofty - I just want something to do.

It's also not so much that I can't learn anything new - my idea of knowledge has always been pragmatic, and so I don't doubt that I could crack open a chemistry textbook and get to work it I wanted to learn something. It's just that I don't particularly want to, right now, having understood the way truth and power are interconnected. I am impotent, but at the moment I do not want to be powerful.

As for helping people, I have no idea what is actually good for anyone (even myself), except for the most obvious things, but those seem precisely to be the things that I can't do anything about.

[Wraith of Azrael]

Hmmmm....

The question of what do you do after all desires have been fufilled...

Depends, do those desires include "spiritual desires" as well? Or are only physical accomplishments? Because if it is only accomplishments which are physical then there is ofcourse the issue of spiritual fufillment. And if there is both spiritual and physical fufillment then the next thing to do is simply enjoy life.

If all desires are met then there is nothing to do besides simply living and enjoying life. Enjoy the now and the little things and seek to preserve this contentness.

That being said, I admit fully that not all my desires are met and yet I am relatively content.

I usually see myself in the neutral-neutral state.

Neither overly happy nor overly sad just neutral.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

I've been a lucid dreamer for years.

Time was, when I would get pins and needles the moment I realized I was lucid - I would be overjoyed, and would immediately start flying, blowing up buildings, changing the colors of objects, having sex with strangers, yelling at people, and so on.

But lately, my desire to lucid dream has become less wish fulfillment and more curious. These sorts of fantasies don't interest me anymore. Even if I could fly and blow up buildings in real life, I wouldn't bother. Why is that exciting? Why should I treat it as if it were? Instead, I have treated my dreams sort of as a philosophical training ground - when my imagination is more powerful, I can more easily mingle with the structures of my experience. Waking life is "oppressive" in this regard, and the imagination is impotent - it is difficult to use fantastical variations to draw out the structures of experience, and the findings are vague and often not repeatable. In doing these investigations, I have lost faith in almost all commonsense notions of time, causation, categories such as "identity" and "existence," and so on. They simply don't hold up to scrutiny - these findings are in no way mystical; in fact, they're rather boring.

However, lately I have become discontent with this mode of research as well. It has dawned on me that what I was searching for - a way to categorize and understand reality - is a nonsensical endeavor. I see now that truth is a function of interpretive power, or the depth with which the world can be manipulated successfully. I'm not sure what else to look for, or what it would mean to find answers more "correct" than present ones. If truth is not something that is discovered, but forcefully made, that means that what one "searches for" is not a matter of uncovering hidden depths, but laying new paths down.

But this raises a new problem, now - there aren't any paths that I want to lay down. There isn't really in particular anything I want to do. My needs are satisfied; my curiosity is satisfied; the wildest fantasies are not appealing. This is not a rejection of the world - I don't find the position absurd or disgusting or in any way profound. It's just that for the first time, I find myself asking the question, "What Do I Do?" Not how do I achieve the goals I have for myself, or which kinds of things make me happiest, or what is best, but just, what is there to do? I could become a god, and be none the better for it.

So I come to you, wise denizens of M&R. What do you do for answers when you come up against the question, "What Do I Do?" Not in regard to any dilemma at all, but just the general question. Assuming that your every satisfaction has been fulfilled (as I believe mine to have been, for the moment), what is it that you would want most, and why? Why do you want it? Why would you do it?

I was thinking that, having satisfied myself totally, I should move on to trying to help someone else. I have always been a selfish and insular person, but now that I don't have any more needs I want to satisfy, maybe someone else who does would appreciate my help? But I don't really have any special talents - so who would I be able to help, even if I wanted to? How do you guys help people?

Welcome to the clouds of freedom; I hope you enjoy the burden of undeniable responsibility. There is much I will say, but most will have to wait until I get back from uni.

I am amused that you laughed so hard at Sartre denying the self was the self the other day though, as this is precisely what you are doing here. What you say here is just about the equivalent of Sartre's early philosophy where everyone got to choose their emotions, what they value, and consequently, what reality is(as one could decree that any object meant any other object). You are denying the axioms of identity, which constitutes the nature anything, the self, is necessarily the case.

I don't think this is an "existentialist" problem. I've read a bit of Heidegger and Sartre and they don't connect with me. I'm very bourgeois and "American," you know. It's a less profound problem than a crisis of being - just looking for something to do.

Certainly "wanting something to do" needn't be framed in such a existentialist context(though the two are intertwined in some way. If you are wanting do do something, there is a particular value that you hold), but simply "wanting something to do" wasn't what lead me down the path of referring to Sartre. What lead me down that path was your description of your examinations of truth and it leading to a point where feel you could not find anything more to truth.

The reason you are satisfied in your examination is that you have hit the axiomatic wall of truth. A place where deductive reasoning cannot illuminate why something must be. In a similar vein to how Sartre examined objects and their relation to values, you are asking the same thing of reality: "Why must it be so?" and finding nothing to show why it must be so. This leads to a situation where you conclude that there can be no further reason why it must be so, making any given truth an imposition of will, an imposition of value; a decision to create truth because that is how you have defined it to be. You can't find any more to the nature truth because there is nothing more.

I suspect you don't connect with them to well because of your philosophical background. To them existence is a cornerstone, something which you, at least it seem from my discussions with you, are highly wary of, so I would expect you not to be too fond of them, even if you are effectively finding the same conclusion and wrapping it up in different discourse due to errors.

As for what do you do, the only answer to that is that you do something. That you banish doubt about what is important and define that it is true that there is something of value that you must do. If, for example, you want to help people, then you must consider that there is an issue that people need help with and that you have the capacity to help them. Find something that interests you(this is where those nasty monsters of being impotent in your capacity to define reality and determinism can be handy, as such things may prescribe that something must be done to maintain a particular state that you value).

I don't think that I take issue with the existentialist notion of existence (Existenz) so much as the idea of "being" conceived as self-subsistent objects that are self-identical. This is exactly the sort of thing Heidegger criticizes as well. It's more the conclusions - Sartre does not move me to embrace my absolute freedom, nor does Heidegger inspire me to rise above my inauthenticity. My goals are less lofty - I just want something to do.

It's also not so much that I can't learn anything new - my idea of knowledge has always been pragmatic, and so I don't doubt that I could crack open a chemistry textbook and get to work it I wanted to learn something. It's just that I don't particularly want to, right now, having understood the way truth and power are interconnected. I am impotent, but at the moment I do not want to be powerful.

As for helping people, I have no idea what is actually good for anyone (even myself), except for the most obvious things, but those seem precisely to be the things that I can't do anything about.

I'd actually argue Heidegger, at least in what I've read, with the notion of "being in the world" glorifies the self-identical, as that entire notion is based on the self-identity of objects(i.e to speak of being and experience is meaningless without referring to the nature of experience and the objects contained within it; the self-identity of objects and experience).

You're in trouble then, as there is no way to do anything without using that power of definition. Indeed, technically, there is no way to live without defining anything, as to live both defines attributes of yourself and to take no action is, in fact, as you are taking an action of nothing, acts as the expression of power: "I will refrain from action." Definition IS reality. To use an example that might be more to you, one cannot have an experience without such an experience being defined. Definition, self-identity, is TRUTH itself.

I don’t really know how to a very good answer to that; what is the obvious good is too vague. However, as an example, if how someone understands the world is at least in part product of deterministic forces, let's say by what ideas they are exposed to, then if there is a particular way of understanding that produces what is good, you acting to tell others of this idea could increase the amount of good.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I'd actually argue Heidegger, at least in what I've read, with the notion of "being in the world" glorifies the self-identical, as that entire notion is based on the self-identity of objects(i.e to speak of being and experience is meaningless without referring to the nature of experience and the objects contained within it; the self-identity of objects and experience).

It's tricky because Heidegger reserves the term "existence" for the essence of a human being - all other beings have essences that are merely categorial, and hence they can be self-identical - tools in a directed sense, and substances in the traditional sense of "a = a." The heart of existentialism is to subvert the notion that human beings are substances, things of which one merely predicates properties (a "soul," a "rational animal," etc.). Sartre basically takes that to its logical conclusion in saying that the law of identity does not apply to humans.

All of that I am totally fine with, and even sympathetic to. What I do not get out of them is any sort of drive to action, which is what I am looking for.

Quote:

You're in trouble then, as there is no way to do anything without using that power of definition. Indeed, technically, there is no way to live without defining anything, as to live both defines attributes of yourself and to take no action is, in fact, as you are taking an action of nothing, acts as the expression of power: "I will refrain from action." Definition IS reality. To use an example that might be more to you, one cannot have an experience without such an experience being defined. Definition, self-identity, is TRUTH itself.

I might be inclined to do so by force of habit, but in my "heart of hearts," so to speak, I never have to take the skeptical goggles off. And usually, I don't.

Quote:

I don’t really know how to a very good answer to that; what is the obvious good is too vague. However, as an example, if how someone understands the world is at least in part product of deterministic forces, let's say by what ideas they are exposed to, then if there is a particular way of understanding that produces what is good, you acting to tell others of this idea could increase the amount of good.

Yes, I could be a Diogenes or an Epicurus - only problem is, I haven't learned what happiness, virtue, or goodness is as they claim to have, so I don't have anything to tell anyone.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I'd actually argue Heidegger, at least in what I've read, with the notion of "being in the world" glorifies the self-identical, as that entire notion is based on the self-identity of objects(i.e to speak of being and experience is meaningless without referring to the nature of experience and the objects contained within it; the self-identity of objects and experience).

It's tricky because Heidegger reserves the term "existence" for the essence of a human being - all other beings have essences that are merely categorial, and hence they can be self-identical - tools in a directed sense, and substances in the traditional sense of "a = a." The heart of existentialism is to subvert the notion that human beings are substances, things of which one merely predicates properties (a "soul," a "rational animal," etc.). Sartre basically takes that to its logical conclusion in saying that the law of identity does not apply to humans.

All of that I am totally fine with, and even sympathetic to. What I do not get out of them is any sort of drive to action, which is what I am looking for.

Quote:

You're in trouble then, as there is no way to do anything without using that power of definition. Indeed, technically, there is no way to live without defining anything, as to live both defines attributes of yourself and to take no action is, in fact, as you are taking an action of nothing, acts as the expression of power: "I will refrain from action." Definition IS reality. To use an example that might be more to you, one cannot have an experience without such an experience being defined. Definition, self-identity, is TRUTH itself.

I might be inclined to do so by force of habit, but in my "heart of hearts," so to speak, I never have to take the skeptical goggles off. And usually, I don't.

Quote:

I don’t really know how to a very good answer to that; what is the obvious good is too vague. However, as an example, if how someone understands the world is at least in part product of deterministic forces, let's say by what ideas they are exposed to, then if there is a particular way of understanding that produces what is good, you acting to tell others of this idea could increase the amount of good.

Yes, I could be a Diogenes or an Epicurus - only problem is, I haven't learned what happiness, virtue, or goodness is as they claim to have, so I don't have anything to tell anyone.

That is problematic though: one relates the world to themselves in experience, which amounts to positioning an identity for yourself with reference to the objects of the world: a nature of yourself. A prime example of this would be the notion of "your body." Heidegger, although he may think he avoids humans having a self-identity, is mistaken. If one is to accept "being in the world" they define themselves an identity. Indeed, it is obvious by the definition of "being in the world" itself, as if you are to belong to the given world, you have given something about your self-identity: that "you" are part of the world.

There is a reason for that I suspect: to define that you take action actually CONTRADICTS the law of having no self-identity, for it is to define what action you, as yourself, will take. Of course, you are also contradicting the law of no self-identity by not taking action, as yourself is defined as not doing anything, but that tends not to be as obvious due to people taking "nothing" actually means an absence of anything instead of the phenomena of other given phenomena being absent that it actually is. The mistake the Existentialist philosophers tend to make is to take that there is freedom to define self-identity for that there is no such thing as self-identity. The truth is that one cannot escape self-identity; if they are to have conscious experience, then they have the self-identity of having experience.

You'll be forever stuck doubt then.

I suppose the only answer to that is to journey about in life until you find it.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

That is problematic though: one relates the world to themselves in experience, which amounts to positioning an identity for yourself with reference to the objects of the world: a nature of yourself. A prime example of this would be the notion of "your body." Heidegger, although he may think he avoids humans having a self-identity, is mistaken. If one is to accept "being in the world" they define themselves an identity. Indeed, it is obvious by the definition of "being in the world" itself, as if you are to belong to the given world, you have given something about your self-identity: that "you" are part of the world.

I think Heidegger doesn't say humans have no self-identity, but rather that their self-identity is not that of a substance, i.e. a thing with properties, but rather a way of relating to itself. Dasein, as he calls human beings, is Dasein by virtue of caring about things. This is a view derived from Kierkegaard, I think. People have projects, values, and the ability to interpret other beings and themselves; substances do not. Sartre is...different, because he sees consciousness and freedom as absolute, impersonal "holes" in the undifferentiated being that is the world. From what I understand Heidegger did not think highly of his philosophy.

I think your definition of self might be leaning towards what Heidegger criticizes. One can't "define" oneself as in a logical relationship - logic itself grows out of our more primal relatedness to the world, which is again, caring about things, moving about them and manipulating them for reasons. You can go ahead and try to look for "yourself" as a definite being in your field of experience - you won't find it, I'll wager. I think your tendency to frame all assumptions in the form of axioms is misleading you. Heidegger basically thinks that in trying to understand your own existence, you have to give up logic momentarily and encounter being more "primordially." You have to engage in a kind of inquiry that is not susceptible to the fallacy of circular reasoning/begging the question, or else you can never begin - this kind of enquiry is more fundamental than logic and axioms are. This is why "defining" Dasein that way is a hopeless endeavor.

Quote:

There is a reason for that I suspect: to define that you take action actually CONTRADICTS the law of having no self-identity, for it is to define what action you, as yourself, will take.

An existentialist would reject this. If existence precedes essence, then you act first and the definition can only come about as a result of that. And as soon as you're off to the races acting in the world, your own definition of yourself will never be able to "catch up" - your existence will always outrun it.

You can at any point say "I am a kind person;" but this is bad faith, since it is not strictly true of you. One free decision to murder someone on a whim, and you will be shown not to be. The same is true for anything..."I am a perceiver," but you will in the course of your day forget to reflect on your own perceiving, and then there will only be the flux of experience without "anyone" thinking about it.

Quote:

You'll be forever stuck doubt then.

I find that doubt is quite liberating. Come join me. ninja

Quote:

I suppose the only answer to that is to journey about in life until you find it.

I'm going to develop a taste for jazz. No matter how confusing and difficult it seems at first, I'm just going to force myself to understand it.