So once again Trump backs away from a stupid idea and solves the problem he created. What achievements!

I’m loving buying the dips in stocks though. Knowing full well that he’ll just cave makes it rather easy to make some money. For that I applaud his senility.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario. — AmadeusD

That’s a cool narrative. Totally wrong, but cool. Carry on.

There are numerous instance of due process violations, detaining citizens who can't provide immediate proof of citizenship, and a recent murder of a woman by an ICE agent. — Relativist

Honestly, anyone who claims the officer who killed Good was within his bounds are either emotional or playing the partisan game. He could have merely stepped out of the way; the intention wasn’t to hit him but to drive away. The consequence for panicking isn’t death. At the very least, given his history, he himself panicked.

But listening to those pretending to be neutral while regurgitating right wing propaganda verbatim is nauseating.

However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. — AmadeusD

Someone’s been watching Fox News.

Nevermind— I meant to say that this description is fair and balanced, and not at all succumbing to hysteria and propaganda like all of you people are doing. How nice to hear someone with the undisputed Real Truth on these culture war issues.

Yes, self-preservation is key, but what does that even mean anymore? — BitconnectCarlos

I think it means preserving its sovereignty. But maybe this is a discussion for another thread — my initial point was only to point out the framework that is being used (in part) in approaching these issues.

Secondly, the defense expenditure has been a far higher percentage of the GDP during the Cold War. Let's remember that also the armed forces were back then larger. There were more men, more ships, more aircraft and more ...nuclear weapons. A way lot more. — ssu

Yes, so what?

And spending has more than kept up with inflation, as I mentioned above.

The United States spending on military is outrageous. The fact that it has been outrageous for decades, or in fact in some ways MORE outrageous in the past (during wars especially), is irrelevant.

That’s true. But the government has more than adjusted for inflation. Much more than your average worker. Seems like yesterday I was talking about the $600 billion dollar allocation.

It just seems to be the idea that the state - or rather, the people running the state - are primarily concerned with the national interest and how to attain it. — BitconnectCarlos

Primarily concerned with security — which makes sense.

I don’t completely agree with realism either, but I’d suggest reading further on it. It’s not as silly as you describe. Most of it is truism. Self preservation is key — although clearly not always rational.

$850 billion is the highest it’s ever been. It’s only gone up.

It’s a ridiculous sum of money. Given our GDP, it should be 1 or 2%, which would still be more than any other country. To argue it’s somehow “lower” is nutty. Look at inflation adjusted spending. To compare to GDP in attempt to make it something other than a monstrosity is absurd.

It’s a realist perspective. Those that are in government are mostly motivated by security and power concerns, as overarching long-term goals. That seems to be the case, especially when looking at something like defense spending, which has only gone up over the years regardless of what the public thinks, and regardless of political party.

But the public do have influence in the short term, beyond question. I think it’s obvious they have long term effects as well (the very fact that the government has to be more cautious or clandestine is itself an effect), but I guess that’s arguable.

The degenerate idiot in office just lost 3 court cases on offshoot wind. But that was never the point I guess.

still believe in US politics — Tzeentch

“Believe”?

Nice quip though. Meaningless, but nice.

I don't take that shit seriously. — Tzeentch

So domestic policy, and actual details, you don’t take seriously. This way you can keep making bullshit generalizations. Well done.

Next time I’m confronted with reality, I’ll use that line. :up:

all he's doing is putting up a display to cover for Washington, which was planning to carry out these policies anyway. — Tzeentch

No they weren’t. False equivalence, as usual.

What policies? In some cases, that’s true— and true of both parties. In others, it’s true about the Republican Party; they’re glad to have Trump as a lightning rod. But in many cases, including the one I mentioned above, it’s very different, and right in your face: one is using the entire force of government to shut down offshore wind, for example, including projects that are 80 or 90% completed— the other passed legislation that was putting billions into that industry. That’s not the same thing— not even close.

There are a lot of policies like that. And it matters. So why keep sticking to this over-general nonsense? Even if you don’t mean it completely, it still gives the sense of the argument from the 90s: “both parties are just as bad.” Maybe that was true at some point, and is still partially true, but it’s lazy.

I’ve been impressed by how diligently, relentlessly, and enthusiastically Trump has tried to murder millions of people and destroy the prospects of a decent human existence through his environmental policies (i.e., climate denial).

It’s incredible that the only time these people fall in line, get serious, get organized, and pay attention, is when they’re sending everyone over the cliff. It’s really something. When it comes to healthcare, social services, or really anything that makes life better for the 80%, they have no ideas and no follow through.

The Republican Party are a officially a death cult.

It’s amazing that we’re giving everything away to China. Especially when solar cells and wind turbines were invented in the United States. Guess Trump really loves China after all.

I'll agree with you on "pitiful" -- this is one of the most embarrassing crashouts I've seen on this site.
You couldn't just acknowledge that it is disinformation and move on with your life. — Mijin

I missed that entire exchange a while back, but agreed. Embarrassing. I was thinking about doing a thread about this, and it’s a good example: “if anything contradicts me, it’s biased.”

So my citations are complete bullshit? YOU are to blame somehow: you don’t read carefully enough, you misunderstood, you’re biased, you’re a bad “interlocutor.” Basically, you’re doing something wrong, not me.

It’s not that common, and not as blatantly obvious as in this example, but it’s common enough to warrant a little reflection.

Truth in Heidegger is aletheia, unconcealedness. This relates to absence, what’s overlooked. Another concept of what dasein is, is a “clearing,” like a clearing in a forest. Basic perception is key, viewed as an opening or blooming.

Contrast this with Descartes or Kant, or even (much earlier) Plato. The human being becomes a rational animal, a thinking substance, a subject. Truth becomes correspondence with an object— and endless epistemological debate follows about the object, the subject, etc.

Meanwhile, modern science develops out of natural philosophy— nature being a translation of the Latin natura, which itself is the translation of the Greek phusis, both of which have original connotations of birth and growth, but later (as in physics and nature) as aspects of the world in terms of substances, mechanics, and forces.

In my view, scientism, materialism, and generally nihilism has been the long term result, embodied especially in the techno-capitalist system we currently endure. It’s all based in this basic Western philosophy, which has evolved for a couple thousand years. As I said before, I think a good antidote is the perspective and practices of the East, as a kind of counterbalance. But they’re basically capitalists now too, largely. So it’s tricky.

I'm here to add more to the pile--"Little Big Man" is so much more humane, funny, and moving. — T Clark

Good to know — I’ve never seen it. Could be one reason why I liked DWW so much. Reminds me of people who love the Magnificent Seven and never watched Seven Samurai. I could be one of those schmucks in this case.

Moonstruck — T Clark

Moonstruck is great. I loved it when I was 17 and watched it recently — still love it.

, I definitely have old coot syndrome. — T Clark

How old are you? I’m 44. I consider myself old, so…

the direction Trump would take the country would be unrecognizable relative to the standards of a constitutional democracy. — Joshs

I’m not sure Trump has a direction.

Interesting post.

Couple of points:

1) What if there is no right or left in any meaningful sense?

2) I’m surprised you didn’t give much time to the financial crisis and the Tea Party movement that followed. I think that (and Occupy) accounts for the different “populist” streams we currently see, with Trump riding the wave of one and Bernie the other.

Remember how popular Sarah Palin was for a large group of people? That amazed me— and even though she lost, that’s where the excitement was. Trump could see this. If anything, Trump is good at reading the room— and it was clear that Bush, the iraq war, and the establishment (represented by Romney and Ryan) were unpopular and were losing. The energy was among the crowd craving WWE type politics.

Regardless, most of this is superficial. Look at the actual policies, and the core element of it hasn’t changed: both parties are factions of the Business Party— that is to say, the ruling class. In its modern form, its business. That’s where the ruling power is. Trump — for however different he is in many ways — hasn’t really strayed from the very policies that have been championed for decades: tax cuts, deregulation, small government, privatization. Same old, same old.

What’s the wealth distribution like in Australia? It’s likely better than the US, but I would expect about 70-80% of people there living fairly precarious lives too. I haven’t done a carful analysis of the economy of down under though.

The point I’m making goes beyond economics, of course— it’s a (mostly tacit) philosophy of life, of how we see ourselves and what we value. We’re living the answers to those questions.

I don’t see widespread objectification of the world as an emerging trend so much as a mystification of everything — Tom Storm

That’s true to a degree, but look at how people really behave. Everyone’s forced into jobs, more or less. And today’s jobs are mostly total crap. Cogs in a machine. Ironically, I think looking at material reality exposes just how materialistic we are.

What are your top 3 or 4 movies? — Tom Storm

From another thread long ago:

Seven Samurai

Shawshank Redemption

2001: A Space Odyssey

The Usual Suspects

No Country For Old Men

Persona

8 1/2

Dances with Wolves

Goodfellas

There Will Be Blood

If I were to pick 3: Seven Samurai, Goodfellas, Dances with Wolves.

Yes, it’s become common to shit on Dances with Wolves — and I get why, some parts are cringe, plus the sentimentality (especially the ending, which I dislike) and portrayal of the soldiers is over the top. But Costner otherwise surrounded himself with talent, from cinematographer to composer to editor to actors — and some parts are so well done that it makes up for what it lacks, by far. Enough so to be one of my favorites.

Shawshank used to be way up there, for years. And of course, long ago my favorite film was Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I was 10 at the time— but maybe I had it right… that movie is gold.

Here’s an easy prediction: this will turn out to be a disaster.

Quote me on it later.

The entire Venezuelan diaspora is cheering — NOS4A2

:rofl:

And Trump’s approval rating is at 99%.

if you want to define the metaphysics of presence as a thinking which doesn't take into account what is completely outside of awareness — Joshs

It’s a thinking that privileges the present. It’s not that it doesn’t take anything else into account.

I’m not sure Heidegger even used the phrase too often. It was Derrida who popularized it. So whether be deconstructs it or not, I don’t know.

In any case, I think my reading is more interesting. I don’t want to start quoting chapter and verse, but a major concern of Heidegger’s is the dehumification of human beings, and I think it’s that piece that’s most relevant today. Presence and its privileged position within Western philosophy has played a large role in that.

when Scorsese wasn't making Ron Howard films. :wink: — Tom Storm

Blasphemy.

Also, I’ll never fully understand why Blade Runner is so praised. I liked it to a degree, but not even in my top 100. I guess I had to have been there.

I found No Country exciting. But that’s a film you have to see in the theater, I think. The use of sound (of all things) is one of the stars of that movie.

Can't say I've seen a film I've enjoyed in around 25 years. — Tom Storm

Wow, well that’s saying something. No Country for Old Men? I saw that one a couple times in theaters. Recently I’ve enjoyed The Killer, Left Handed Girl, One Battle After Another. I enjoyed Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris way back when.

Not a fan of any of those?

You're supposed to dig deeper into the philosophers' work you cited in your OP. — L'éléphant

Second paragraph:

There’s much more detail involved which I can get into depending on how the thread develops, but I wanted to keep this relatively brief. — Mikie

I feel like I’ve elaborated further, as necessary. But to each their own.

That's the thing -- we can't even make a memory out of something that's outside of our consciousness. — L'éléphant

I fail to see the relevance. Plenty of behavior involves no conscious awareness, yet it happens. We may have no memory of turning the doorknob to event a room, but we know it must have occurred. We’re all in agreement about that, I think.

All of these are examples of absence, which is exactly what isn’t privileged— and that was your initial question.

I'm just pointing out to you when I used the ANS that what's hidden from consciousness may not necessarily be at a disadvantaged given that humans have a propensity to favor the clear and present perception. — L'éléphant

Fine— but I never said anything about being at a disadvantage. I think that defining a human being (and the world, or “reality”) in terms of conscious awareness, “thinking,” reason, logos, or in Heidegger talk as “presence at hand,” does lead to problems, but this particular state of being isn’t harmful in itself. It’s only that it isn’t primarily what we are (or what the world is) — and privileging it has lead to various unintended consequences that continue to the present day.

I thought the idea was that everything is always here and now and it is our experiences which give us the impression that it is otherwise. — Punshhh

I think our impressions give us the sense that everything is here and now, and the rest is unknown. At least that’s the emphasis of various types of phenomenology: our own conscious awareness is what we can be sure of, whether representation or not.

Husserl and his school of phenomenology is relevant here only in the sense that it was an influence on Heidegger, but otherwise isn’t that important.

There’s plenty of differences. The propaganda under a democratic administration would be much nicer.

But given Trump’s hold on his party and his history of completely ignoring good advice— or advisors generally— he does bear responsibility here. More so than Biden would have.

I don’t think this is what Derrida is getting at in his deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence. — Joshs

You could be right, but I don’t care much about Derrida. I think he was mostly a windbag. I mention him in the OP because he popularized the phrase and occasionally said some interesting things, but it’s Heidegger that I’m building off of here.

So we’re recklessly and lawlessly invading a country and kidnapping its president, and why? For their resources, and so Trump can appear to have a win by once again finding a solution to a problem that he created in his mind.

Must be nice to live in such a delusional world.

Crudely put here, these familiar time terms are really a unity. — Constance

In my understanding, it’s a unity in the sense that these traditional terms are really an abstraction from human activity. It’s all happening, and so the future is just as much the past and the present as the past is also the future. Which from a traditional Aristotelian sense of time is a gibberish statement. Nevertheless, there it is.

Not sure what this has to do with the metaphysics of presence. — Constance

To me, a consequence of privileging the present, and substance ontology generally, is a modern form of materialism that eventually reduces the goal of human life to consumption. Why? Because human beings become a substance, an object, like everything else— with perhaps the added trait of “reason” or language or thought. Which isn’t entirely untrue, of course. But any spiritual content — which once existed — is now gone, replaced with scientism, nihilism, capitalism. These now become the moral context in which society operates, from its mores to its laws.

Obviously these are sweeping statements and need much more examples and elaboration to fill them out. But that’s the connection I see— and the reason I find the metaphysics of presence an important and relevant philosophical concept.

Also, I am not advocating a return to Christian or Hellenistic religion. Just to be clear.

2, How can we know, that there is something which isn’t here? Or in other words, how can we say that there really is something which isn’t here and now, whilst the only things we can be certain about (say something about) are what is here and now? — Punshhh

So I would challenge this assumption. Why is the only thing we can be certain of in the “here and now”?

But in any case, for everything that is here and now, how many things are NOT here and now? Far more. From the workings of our bodies to all activity outside our scope of vision, what’s absent and unknown is simply much bigger than what is present and “known.” Yet this is what’s been privileged historically, and has even come to define human beings, from zoon echon logon to res cogitans.

The influence of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and even Kant is immeasurable when it comes to thinking about and defining human being (and thus what a good life, propose, and happiness mean). Yet to me it’s like defining a screwdriver as a paint can opener. Our capacity to think, speak, and be consciously aware (as in Descartes’ definition of thought) are secondary characteristics.

In other words, we should discard what's already been theorized. — L'éléphant

Largely, yes. But not because the theory is necessarily “wrong.”

You’re right to push back on such a big claim. But try to think of it less as reinventing the wheel and more of talking about the chariot. Doing so doesn’t negate the wheel’s invention, it’s simply talking about something else, albeit adjacent.

Should we come up with our own view from scratch? — L'éléphant

Not really. Remember, I’m building off of the work of Heidegger mainly, so this isn’t some armchair theorizing out of the blue. I’m naturally repulsed my that as well. Really the entire argument is based on historical and textual evidence. It’s an attempt to return to a presocratic understanding of being.

So, you don't think the autonomic nervous system doesn't happen in the present? It's a system that works without us being conscious of it. Please try to give a better example. — L'éléphant

No need, because I think your example is a good one.

The ANS. Yes, it works without conscious awareness. Its functions are mostly transparent or invisible to us, yet it happens. So we’re breathing all the time, but how often do we notice? Not until something goes wrong, or we’re meditating or something like that. Is that really “present”? No, I’d argue it’s concealed from our conscious mind. It’s absent until one’s attention is turned to it.

Now you can make an argument that everything from gravity to behavior that’s “second nature” all happen in the present, but that’s begging the question. It’s essentially saying “x is present because it happens in the present.” From one perspective, this makes perfect sense: everything happens in the present, then becomes past in memory while pushing into the unknown future. Like a moving point on a number line. But this perspective is exactly what’s being questioned.

Those are excellent questions. (It may take me a little time to respond today, so I wanted to at least acknowledge the response.)

Surely presence would include the idea of place as well as of time. Because for something to be present in the present, it would also be present in a place? — Punshhh

That’s true, although like in the case of time, the concept of space is also a little murky. The “here and now” is a well known phrase, and seemingly go together— no question. But exactly why that is privileged over what isn’t here (or now) is the theme of this thread.

Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers. — L'éléphant

Like Aristotle and Plato, yes. But if that presentation obscures something, we should think about it anew.

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? — L'éléphant

As opposed to what is absent, hidden, concealed. Which is far greater than what’s merely present before us.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. Human beings have been essential defined as thinking things — the res cogitans. But “thinking” is worth understanding a bit more. Descartes was very clear about what he meant, and it’s telling.

’s post is relevant here I think.

You’re right to mention the “now” — that’s how we generally see time, as a series of “now” points, dating back to Aristotle’s essay on time. But this conception itself is based on an understanding of being as substance, as ousia, and so privileges the present as well, the “now” point.