When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?
— Xtrix

Logically speaking; questions are the fundamental knowledge of answers pieced together with logic and context, because a question will tell you more about the subject than the answer. — Tiberiusmoon

Questions are fundamental answers? Maybe examples would help here, because this simply looks incoherent to me.

When we ask "What is justice?" -- this indeed presupposes that we have some idea about what we're referring to. Or "What is a tree?" But to say questions and answers are the same thing "pieced together" somehow by "logic and context" is basically meaningless. We have questions, and we don't always have answers to those questions. Sometimes that's because the questions are incoherent, sometimes because we don't have enough information or experience, etc.

When we ask very basic questions of life, we're "doing" philosophy. When we contemplate the answers to questions, we're doing philosophy. When we're thinking about lunch, we're not doing philosophy. Philosophy is essentially ontology -- we think about being and the being of various beings.

This is arguable, but as close to a definition as I can see. The rest seems "privative."

“ Mathematical knowledge is regarded as the one way of apprehending beings which can always be certain of the secure possession of the being of the beings which it apprehends. Whatever has the kind of being adequate to the being accessible in mathematical knowledge is in the true sense. This being is what always is what it is. Thus what can be shown to have the character of constantly remaining, as remanens capax mutationem, constitutes the true being of beings which can be experienced in the world. What enduringly remains truly is. This is the sort of thing that mathematics knows. What mathematics makes accessible in beings constitutes their being. Thus the being of the "world" is, so to speak, dictated to it in terms of a definite idea of being which is embedded in the concept of substantiality and in terms of an idea of knowledge which cognizes beings in this way. Descartes does not allow the kind of being of innerworldly beings to present itself, but rather prescribes to the world, so to speak, its "true" being on the basis of an idea of being (being = constant objective presence) the source of which has not been revealed and the justification of which has not been demonstrated. Thus it is not primarily his dependence upon a science, mathematics, which just happens to be especially esteemed, that determines his
ontology of the world, rather his ontology is determined by a basic ontological orientation toward being as constant objective presence, which mathematical knowledge is exceptionally well suited to grasp.* In this way Descartes explicitly switches over philosophically from the development of traditional ontology to modem mathematical physics and its transcendental
foundations.” (Being and Time) — Joshs

Can you cite the page and translation please?

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication — Cheshire

What about: philosophy is a word we give to a kind of thinking distinguished by the questions being asked. Those questions are perennial ones, showing up in all ancient writings -- what is life, death, a human being, existence, love, justice, meaning, happiness, "goodness," etc.

I feel like this is broad enough a definition to include a lot of what's being said here.

Whatever possessed you to revive this, a year after its demise? Always an interesting topic, but still....

Addendum:
Scrolling back to gather groundwork, I see it is your thread. Which serves as the best reason there is for reviving it. My bad....sorry. — Mww

:grin: Excellent question, though. I clicked on "discussions" I had created and noticed I failed to respond to you last year, and given it was an interesting reply I felt compelled to do it. Better late than never.

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge — Tiberiusmoon

Well many great minds agree with you. It just rings hollow for me. The influence of epistemology/science and the problems therein (how do we know we know, etc) seems obvious.

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?

In an if-then relationship, the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent, and the consequent is necessary for the antecedent. So when one says "if I am conscious then I exist" (implied by saying "I am conscious therefore I exist"), one is saying that existence is necessary for consciousness. If you were to reverse it, and say "I exist therefore I am conscious", you would be saying that consciousness is necessary for existence, and that existence is sufficient for consciousness, i.e. that everything that exists necessarily must ("first") be conscious. Which seems the opposite of what you're aiming for, and what Descartes was saying, i.e. that everything that is conscious necessarily must ("first") exist. — Pfhorrest

That's certainly what I'm trying to avoid, yes. If we take Descartes to mean by "If I am consciously aware, then I exist" that we likewise exist even when we're not conscious, then that's fine. But the emphasis was placed on consciousness, not on unconsciousness, and it's precisely in unconsciousness where we live the majority of our lives. So I still view this as unfortunate. By saying "If I exist, then I have the possibility to think," we're shifting emphasis. Now we want to ask "What is it like to exist as a human being?" rather than "What is thought/consciousness?"

So are there 3 positions?

1) being is source

2) being is knowledge

3) being is something else — Gregory

Let me give another brief synopsis of Heidegger, if you don't mind. Bear with me, because it's slightly longer than normal, but it'll give perhaps an overview that'll help flush out the details. This is my reading, of course, so please push me for citations and details if you're skeptical about any particular claim.

Being can be interpreted in many ways. That's exactly the point. It has been interpreted as phusis, as idea, as ousia, as substantia, as God, as nature, and so on...it has also been called a "vapor" (Nietzsche) and an empty word. All of which are true in their own way.

What Heidegger does is try to show that this spectrum of interpretations in the Western world, beginning with the Greeks, shares something in common -- as one would expect, given that we're all not only part of the "Western" tradition (I like to think along the lines of languages, in this case Proto-Indo-European) but also human beings, and so can't help but do some things similarly.

That common feature, according to Heidegger, is presence. Derrida calls this the "metaphysics of presence," and he's right.

Presence, of course, implies "time" -- the present. But if we take "time" to mean what the tradition has meant by it (starting with Aristotle), or even how it's "ordinarily" understood, we're right back on to the wrong track. Why? Because the perspective which guided Aristotle's interpretation of time was itself rooted in presence -- it was itself one part of this tradition. Therefore, time itself also gets interpreted as something present -- as a series or sequence of "now-points."

This is why Heidegger tries to come up with a new understanding of time as "ecstatic openness," as temporality. To do so, he also has to re-interpret the human being; not as rational animal, which the tradition holds, but as dasein -- a "here," a "clearing," etc. Why? Because we're the one's raising this question to begin with. We're the ones interpreting "being" at all, or are even concerned with it. So it's important to understand ourselves, and if it turns out that this "clearing" is the point where everything gets interpreted from, then we cannot use the traditional perspective to understand it. If we did, we'd simply be using the traditional concepts of "nature," "material," "substance," "time," "reason," "animal," etc.

So we need to re-interpret the human being, ourselves, without bringing in concepts from the past. This is why he calls us "dasein," why he calls time "temporality," and all the other weird terms he uses. It's also why he emphasizes phenomenology as the method for analysis. When he analyzes dasein, he goes through various layers until he arrives at the interpretation of us as this embodied time -- temporality.

Dasein, who cares about, understands, and interprets being = being-in-the-world = care = temporality. The "da," the here, is an openness which in later Heidegger becomes more aligned with "aletheia," the concept of un-concealment or disclosure. He'll say that this is what Parmenides was talking about in the famous "thinking and being are one" fragment -- that he really is saying "apprehension and being are one," apprehension/perceiving in the sense of un-concealment. But the point remains.

How any of this is relevant to the real world, to our lives, to politics, etc., is another question. :lol:

I think I mostly agree with that, except for the "don't depend on philosophers anymore" part. Maybe not contemporary philosophers, but certainly philosophy. The sciences don't simply detach from general human thought or basic philosophcial questions -- they're still very much grounded upon tentative answers to basic questions of philosophy, which also provides their fundamental concepts.

the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted. (...) What I'm saying there is that the "sum" is even more primordial than "thought," and thus the Cogito should be inverted in that sense. I didn't mean to imply everything that "is" is a conscious, thinking being.
— Xtrix

Not sure Rene would go for that; it is my understanding that he intended the “I” of “...therefore I am” to be necessarily conditioned by the “cogito”. In other words, they are mutually dependent, same subject, different predicates kinda thing. The “I” that thinks is not the cause of the “I” that is, and the “I” that is is not an effect of the “I” that thinks. The “I” that thinks is the very same as the “I” that is. — Mww

I'm sure Descartes wouldn't go for it, but I nonetheless think it's true. Remember, the "I" that thinks is nothing more than the conscious subject, in my reading. In fact when Descartes goes to clarify this in his Principles of Philosophy, he says by "thought" he means consciousness. So by saying "I am conscious, therefore I exist" would be more accurate. Even more accurate, and close to what I think you're saying: "I am conscious, I exist." The "therefore" isn't necessary.

But to me it's all like saying "I'm awake, therefore I'm alive." We all know that when we're asleep, we're still alive. Likewise, we're not always consciously aware, yet we exist. Existence seems a more primordial concept, then, and something out of which all other human activities emerge -- just like "life." Or at least it's the background upon which things like thinking and awareness take place -- existence is presupposed.

So, again, the inversion should read: "I exist, therefore I can be conscious of things, think, and even give this the 'I' label." The dead cannot think at all.

what we can "know" with our senses, with empirical data, is all that can be known
— Xtrix

Not an advocate of a priori knowledge, huh? Are we to maintain that it is impossible to know anything that isn’t first perceived? — Mww

I was speaking for the empiricists and most scientists here, not myself.

Advertisement has done untold harm. It's gotten worse with time. Less about information about a product, more about flashiness -- use of sex appeal, "catchy" jingles, slogans, etc. Repeated over and over again, this effects our psychology in many ways. Plenty of studies on this. It goes right along with the public relations industry, Edward Bernays and others: ways to influence the public by creating wants and swaying opinion.

True, we can continue with the delusion that it's all about individual choice and that advertisement isn't to blame -- but that's a complete joke. Advertisement, like other kinds of manipulation -- propaganda -- most certainly has effects, and not for the better.

The Sickness is the System
Richard Wolff

Little (paraphrased) excerpt on workplace alternatives I think is worth sharing:

“I want to extend democracy to include the workplace because I believe it should never have been excluded from it. I find it bizarre that in a country that makes a big deal of its commitment to democracy that it never applied that so-called value to the workplace. You know, the workplace is where most adults spend most of their time. Nine to five, five out of seven days a week, in most parts of the world — the best hours of the day you’re working, many more hours you’re recuperating from it or getting ready for it. This is a very crucial part of your life — and a democratic society really doesn’t deserve the label if it excludes the workplace from the democratic commitments that it articulates.”

just as a hammer can be thought of as a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end of it, weighing a certain amount and of a certain dimension or having other properties, but isn't thought of such when we're absorbed in the activity of hammering, likewise the world isn't simply "material."
— Xtrix

Does that mean for Heidegger the world is more than material, that it is at least material? Is a material thing something that has a countable duration i. time and an extension in space? Does Heidegger accept this description and only want to remind us that the subjective aspect contributes such notions as usefulness to what an object is? How are duration and extension derived? Do they presuppose some basis on which to measure duration and extension, that is , some feature that remains constant and self-identical such that it can be counted? — Joshs

I don't know what "at least material" means.

Heidegger is saying that our present-at-hand mode of being is very different from our more absorbed coping with the world, as exemplified by equipment (like hammers). When we're doing philosophy and science, we see things as objects -- mass, material, weight, dimensions, time as a number line, etc. When we're engaged with activities, or are in "flow," we're not in the same mode and so not seeing things in the same way. The hammer no longer is a material object with properties, it's something for hammering. That's not to say it's not also material, but that materialism is privative.

To my eyes Heidegger's ontic is dualistic (me and a hammer) but his ontology is not so — Gregory

Remember that "ontic" refers to entities, and "ontological" to being. It's not that Heidegger discounts the fact that at times we consider ourselves "selves" or even "subjects" apart from an outside world -- that is certainly the case, sometimes. But precisely in moments of absorbed coping (as Dreyfus puts it), the ready-to-hand moments of skilled action, like hammering, we're not a subject wielding a hammer. Another example is driving, or maybe even walking or opening a door. There's little memory of most of these things, we can be talking or on the phone or thinking about all kinds of things -- most of it is unconscious and not guided by any conscious rule-following. In moments like this, we're not subjects or objects.

If you have more on how Dasein understands itself as not separate from matter but not lost in the ocean of matter i'd be interested. — Gregory

It's worth keeping in mind that "matter" is a scientific concept from physics and chemistry. So from this perspective, which seems to be true for sure, we're atoms and molecules and cells. We have bodies, brains, eyes, organs, flesh, tissue, muscles and bones and blood, etc. But remember the "perspective" part -- just as a hammer can be thought of as a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end of it, weighing a certain amount and of a certain dimension or having other properties, but isn't thought of such when we're absorbed in the activity of hammering, likewise the world isn't simply "material." That's a strong perspective, the perspective of natural science, but it's limiting and, basically, derivative. It leaves out the "world," and our typical being in the world. It's an abstraction which, while true, isn't the whole truth, and isn't even the primary truth. Even as Kant pointed out, rightly, it forgets the "subject" and our contributions to the "outside world" of matter. In a sense, there would be no matter without human beings.

Does this make sense?

What type of being does Man understand? The material world? — Gregory

Again, forgive my nit-picking, but when you say "type" of being, do you mean how Man interprets being? I'm taking you to mean this.

So yes, seeing the world as material is a good example. That's certainly one interpretation. In this view the world is a substance -- ousia, in Greek (or how it's traditionally translated, anyway). That substance ontology goes right through Descartes, according to Heidegger. His mind/body dualism is really the res cogitans and the res extensa, in Latin. The res is basically a substance -- the conscious/thinking substance and the extended substance. So here we have a split between our consciousness and the contents of our consciousness, the objects of the "outside world." Seems very natural to most of us. Does this ring true to you as well?

In Kant, the formulation becomes more of a subject with representations about the objects of experience, objects which "pass through" the forms of space and time. But he's still taking up Descartes' ontology. As for his analysis of time, it dates back to Aristotle's essay in his Physics, where time is treated as a present-at-hand being.

But there are many ways of interpreting the world. He argues that the early Greeks interpreted it much differently than those in the middle ages, or even the later Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. He's trying to find the "horizon" for any understanding or interpretation of being at all, and he does so by analyzing us -- dasein. But not in the way we've usually been analyzed and thought of -- in terms of our "reason" or "mind" or "subjectivity" (after all, with an interpretation of being comes an interpretation of human being -- in the West, mostly "echon zoon logon" (the rational animal)). This is why he comes up with this name (dasein), and why he insists on analyzing dasein in its "average everydayness" in a phenomenological manner -- without invoking traditional assumptions, beliefs, prejudices, frameworks, concepts, etc, but letting things speak for themselves, especially that which is "hidden."

As you know, he concludes that time is the horizon for any interception of being, but not "time" in the traditional sense, but in the sense of temporality. Temporality is simply another way of interpretation Sorge, which is a way of tying together our basic state of being-in-the-world.

So you see the different layers here. It's a complicated work, and hard to see it all unless you've read it all (and several times over), studied other texts of his (I recommend Intro to Metaphysics and Basic Problems of Phenomenology), etc.

Also, do you believe Heidegger is saying more than Aristotle and Augustine in putting time in the soul of Dasein? — Gregory

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He does quote from both, and has a long analysis of Aristotle in particular. I'm not sure about his position on Augustine, but with Aristotle he'll go on to say that Aristotle treats "time" as an object, something present-at-hand, and explains it as such in his essay in the Physics. I could go into it more if you're interested, but I'm out of time right now.

I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time.
— Xtrix

I like where this is going. Is man time or being? — Gregory

Man is time (temporality). Man also exists, of course, and so is a "being" -- but he is the being (entity) for which "being" is even an issue -- he exists with an understanding of being. In other words, he exists and has an understanding of existence. That's how I would say it. But don't take my word for it:

"We have already intimated that Dasein has a pre-ontological Being as its ontically constitutive state. Dasein is in such a way as to be something which understands something like Being. Keeping this interconnection firmly in mind, we shall show that whenever Dasein tacitly understands and interprets something like Being, it does so with time as its standpoint. Time must be brought to light -- and genuinely conceived -- as the horizon for all understanding of Being and for any way of interpreting it. In order for us to discern this, time needs to be explicated primordially as the horizon for the understanding of Being, and in terms of temporality as the Being of Dasein, which understands being." (B/T 39/17)
[Italics are Heidegger's, the underlined part is mine]

If this passage makes sense to you differently, I'm interested in hearing why.

But any human willing can be torn asunder. The only thing that can't be torn asunder is matter which can't be created or destroyed. So care would be the substance of the world which holds us in existence and allows us to care, love, and will. That's where I'm at at this point in the discussion. — Gregory

But just the way you're describing it betrays a kind of Cartesian way of looking at things. Matter is the only thing that can't be created or destroyed? Why invoke matter? That's already two steps removed from what Heidegger is talking about, because now you're bringing concepts from natural philosophy (science) into the equation -- namely, of physics and chemistry.

Equating care with "substance" is also completely off track, in my view. Substance ontology is another example of something Heidegger is trying to overcome -- he feels Descartes inherits a substance ontology from the middle ages (and thus from the Greeks): "He [Descartes] defined the res cogitans ontologically as an ens; and in the medieval ontology the meaning of Being for such an ens had been fixed by understanding it as an ens creatum. God, as ens infinitum, was the ens increatum." (B/T 46/25)

To say that care is substance or matter, and allows us to love/will is like saying "care allows us to care," which is tautological, and is furthermore treating "care" as some kind of entity that isn't dasein (a substance). But care is dasein.

Also, we have no clue what "love" is. If you want to switch "care" for "love," you can of course, but I think that leads to the potential for huge misunderstandings given the connotations -- for example, that love is a kind of desire or an emotion (as distinct from "hatred"), etc. You can completely hate something or be disgusted by something or be "absorbed" by something or fascinated by something, etc., and that's all care. To subsume all of this under "love" is just a mistake.

You’re absolutely correct. Heidegger does not view Dasein from the vantage of a subject-object binary. If one instead speaks of self and world, then Dasein belongs to both poles. — Joshs

It's very tricky to talk about, and I myself often fail to explain it without falling into contradictions. But let me nit-pick a little here: saying "belongs to both" is correct, I think, but notice that "both" also implies that two separate things exist, and that dasein belongs to both of them -- a self and a world. Or perhaps a mind and a body. But another way to say it would be, confusingly, that both are distinctions made by dasein as present-at-hand entities: the present-at-hand entity (the being) of "self" and the present-at-hand entity of "world."

I think you probably agree with this, but it's worth pointing out -- Descartes creeps into even our very way of speaking.

Yes, but how has Heidegger radicalized the concept of time so that it can be understood as heedful circumspective relevance? Why can’t we help caring about the world? Temporality is at the heart of Husserl’s model also but Care doesn’t apply to his approach. Why not? Because the structure of temporality for Heidegger describes an intimacy between past present and future missing from Husserl. Care is this intimate pragmatic relevance, this for-the-sake-of which orients all experience with respect to the immediate past. — Joshs

True, but Sorge is the word that ties together various aspects of being-in-the-world, which is more fo pragmatic the nitty-gritty of dasein's "average everydayness." So while Care is the skeleton, the real analytical meat on the bones comes from the first 5 sections, where he analyzes being-in, worldhood in general, talks about the ready-to-hand and present-at-hand, use of equipment (hammering), etc. I personally find that stuff more interesting and insightful, but to each his own.

The phenomenon of care in its totality is essentially something that cannot be tom asunder; so any attempts to trace it back to special acts or drives like willing and wishing or urge and addiction, or to construct it out of these, will be unsuccessful. " p.193-194 — waarala

Yes— thanks for citing this passage.

Again, I think it’s best not to dwell on care. I see care as a bridge between the analysis of being-in-the-world and temporality. We “care” about the world by default— we can’t help it. Just as we can’t help being (or having) a world. What’s more important is the structure of time that emerges from the analysis. After all, it’s not “Being and Care”, it’s being and time.

As I see it, being is man and time is spiritual love. — Gregory

I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time.

Care is the pragmatic relational structure of relevance that holds between self and world at all times. — Joshs

This isn’t right. You’d have to cite something to back this up, but the very distinction between “self” and “world” is very much antithetical to Heidegger.

And who has really tried it?

Nobody. — ssu

It’s been “tried” for decades in the sense of being viewed as an objective. But like other political fantasies, it’s been nothing but a cover to do nothing for the majority of the population.

Your not killing "bipartisanship" anymore, your killing parliamentarism. — ssu

The Republicans have already done that.

That other pay homage to you or want to be in good terms with you isn't leadership. — ssu

Nor did I once say that.

But I’ll repeat: he’s as much a leader now as he’s ever been. He’s a figurehead. The leaders are McConnell et al.

So I've been reading this great work as a work of love about love. — Gregory

I think it’s best to start from what we can understand about Heidegger. Just take the title: Being and Time. That gives us a clue.

There’s been a lot of analysis about Sorge, but I think it’s best to place it in the context of his entire thesis. What he’s doing is asking about being. He does so by interrogating an entity: us, dasein. This entity has the basic state of being-in-the-world, which he goes on to discuss at length.

Later, he ties many of these aspects to “care” as their existential meaning. I used to think of it as a kind of willing, but I don’t think that’s quite right. I think it has more to do with Husserl’s intentionality—our directed activity, our concernful engagement with the world.

But it’s not that important in my view. What’s more important is the ontological interpretation of care, which turns out to be temporality. Dasein is care in the sense of embodied time, which is the horizon for interpreting or understanding being (including ourselves) — hence “Being and Time.” He’ll also go through a long history of how we’ve traditionally understood ourselves, time, and being generally, starting with the Greeks. This is the main thrust of his work.

So is care that important? Not really, and it can often be mistaken as being emotional somehow because of the connotations of the word, when it’s more akin with directed activity or more related to awareness/attentional behavior.

1. My post had nothing serious to do with the topic. — god must be atheist

Fair enough.

Yes, to hell with any kind of desire to reach consensus: the Majority rules, so just crush the minority! That will surely work...

...just as it has worked during the last years. — ssu

Yes, to hell with trying to convince those who believe in Q anon, that Trump will be reinstated and won the election, that climate change is a hoax, etc. I'm not interested in "consensus" in that respect -- that's a pure delusion, and the hour is already late. If we keep on sleepwalking we're toast as a species (if you "believe" in science, anyway).

The stakes are too high, which was the point of the OP. This "desire to reach consensus" is a joke. How has that worked the last "years" (40+ years to be precise)? If you think it's turned out well, that's your business.

If the Republicans can do it, the Democrats can too -- and should, especially given that their policies have majority support -- unlike McConnell's. It may even lock out Republican power for years to come. Worth a try.

Or we can push trying to "compromise" with people who want to see the election overturned and nothing done on climate change.

Seems like an easy call to me: let "bipartisanship" die.

Otherwise you have policy lurching drastically every time a different side gets a majority. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's time to take that risk -- this middle-ground bullshit has gotten us exactly nowhere.

In truth the GOP is leaderless. — ssu

He's still as much a "leader" as he ever was, in that they still pay homage to him. But he's been a figurehead all along. So where's the leadership? In the same place they've always been. It's Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and other establishment neoliberals. They always knew Trump was a buffoon, but they're afraid because he's still popular with his base.

Which part is causing difficulties in understanding? — god must be atheist

I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum. — god must be atheist

What does this have to do with anything? What does it even mean? "Bipartisan warfare" is militia who fall on the "non-binary gender spectrum"? What does gender have to to with anything this thread is about? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or are you just a joke?

I'm leaning towards the latter.

On that point, what are they going to do when Trump goes? Matt Gaetz? Ivanka? Who is the heir apparent? LOL! — James Riley

There will be no one like Trump in my view.

Remember that he spent 40+ years cultivating a brand, appearing in TV commercials for Burger King, in movies, on magazines, talk show interviews, on the Apprentice, and so on. He was able to "read the audience," and as essentially an entertainer knew how to pander to what he (rightly) saw was the more enthusiastic wing of the Republican party -- what were initially the Sarah Palin/Tea Party type people, and was able to repeat populist slogans (some borrowed from Bernie Sanders), played social media very well, embarrassed his opponents by disregarding common rules of political conduct, and eventually clawed his way to the nomination. Since he stood for nothing in terms of policies, the establishment was happy with him and fell in line, deathly afraid of his voting block -- and his supporters loved him even more because he was doing what they always dreamed of -- sticking it to the liberals and what's seen as the liberal offshoots: the media, Hollywood, academia, feminism, civil rights, environmentalism, etc. etc.

He had 90+% approval rating with Republicans, and energized a segment of the population like never before with his antics -- despite his administration's policies sticking it to his voters economically. He is still much beloved, and much feared, and will probably run again in '24. How can there be another person like this?

Two things are possible: he fades away, or he remains popular. If he remains popular, that doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into votes for other Republicans. Sure, when he's been on the ballot he's done pretty well, despite losing the popular vote twice. But one way to look at this is to say that this represents their "best shot"...and the fact that it still came up short is telling. Remember: 90+ approval rating. People worshiped this guy like a cult figure. So if they can't win with him ON the ballot, what about him not on the ballot? It'll be interesting to see. I think it's more a matter of whether the Democratic voters remain energized as well. If nothing passes in congress the next two years, they'll have nothing to be energized about (without the motivation to oust Trump), and so it could very well be a disaster.

But the bottom line is: there is no heir to Trump. He's the party now. Whether that's enough to win? Who knows. Like always, it comes down to whether the majority of Americans who are against Republican policies and dislike Trump come out and vote or not.

A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but upon closer examination you will see that only very rare rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they came up with. — Rafaella Leon

Reagan was the creator of his own ideas, eh? Lol....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8

And that is itself a fallacy: ad vericundium (?). Populum, sorry. — James Riley

Millions of people voted for Hitler, too. Many I'm sure were good, well-intentioned people. So can we really judge them all poorly for helping along a disaster?

Yes.

Funny, how you pretend to be cynical about politics and politicians, except when it comes to your master and suddenly you become as naive as a newborn lamb. Good luck with getting anyone to take you seriously. — Baden

...Just worth quoting.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

I'm not aware of convincing more Republican citizens that climate change is real is referred to as bipartisanship, — Saphsin

It isn’t, but in the context of my example it lead into a broader discussion of completely different realities, and when one should simply give up and move on.

I don't really think it has anything to do with unity or division, it's a bit of a strange way of talking about what's going on, a kind of red herring. — Saphsin

I don't see the strangeness. Americans are fairly divided (mostly aligned with political affiliation -- no surprise) about climate change. Whatever you want to call it, it's not unity. But that's exactly what's needed -- far more so than when we "came together" briefly after 9/11. This division was manufactured, though. If the Koch brothers (et al.) had an interest in not going to war with Afghanistan after 9/11, they probably could have convinced half the population that it was a Democratic hoax or something.

We're talking past each other despite agreement, I meant nonsense as in bipartisanship. — Saphsin

Ah, I must have misread it. Apologies.

Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics. — NOS4A2

Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.

If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never. — James Riley

Yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea of bipartisanship: nothing gets done. It simply hasn't dawned on them that they will lose power by getting next to nothing done, and watering everything down the way Obama did. If they do know that, they simply don't care. Very strange.

Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), Republicans and most Democrats prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.

If the Democrats are smart, they'd end the filibuster immediately. Pressure Manchin as much as possible -- far more than they're doing now. Otherwise they'll lose in 2022, because nothing would have gotten done. Which is exactly what McConnell wants -- dysfunction, obstruction, and nothing passing that's beneficial to the country.

Again worth repeating:

Biden administration: climate change is a priority. (Proposals are arguable.)
Trump administration: climate change is a Chinese hoax.

But there's "no difference" between the parties. :lol:

So working together is a dogma that needs to die? — DingoJones

:yawn:

Things haven't always been that way. — Mr Bee

True, but for multiple reasons it's where we are today.

The NYT was basically gushing over Biden's first infrastructure bill by bypassing the Republicans, and now Biden is being tempted to go back to that nonsense again. — Saphsin

"Nonsense"? When McConnell is saying he will spend 100% of his energy trying to stop this administration, there's little alternative except to pass bills through reconciliation. Hardly "nonsense."

True -- we can do nothing whatever. That's an option. A death sentence for the species, but an option.

So nice that you picked those two, since they're diametrically opposed and clearly reveal liberal elitist hypocrisy.

Every time you reduce air pollution over a first-word liberal enclave, you condemn another hundred thousand or so third worlders to death. When you make energy more expensive, poor people can't afford it. The very poorest in the world can't get clean water and die of disease. All so wealthy liberals in developed countries can feel good about themselves.

Here's a small example. In Ireland, they're diverting crops to biofuels. Environmentalists like that. Sadly, the policy is starving the poor. — fishfry

If this is all you choose to see, that's your business. But they're not at all "diametrically opposed," unless of course you select for examples that fit that Fox News/Wall Street Journal narrative.

To repeat: one party acknowledges a problem, another says it's a "hoax." You can't see the difference? That's also your business.

If we want to talk seriously about how to transition, that's a conversation worth having. You can't have it with Republicans.

You can Google around for dozens of similar stories. — fishfry

No kidding. And in your Googling, you can find what climatologists are saying. You can read about how the ice caps are melting, how most of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade, how sea levels are rising, how we're close to passing the 1.5 degree mark, and how they're telling us that we need to move very quickly indeed to avoid setting off tipping points and utter catastrophe.

The fact that these are the examples you choose to highlight in your Googling, avoiding the issue altogether, is revealing.

The fact is, green energy policies are a disaster for the poor people in developing countries. — fishfry

Fossil fuels have been a disaster for poor people as well, as I'm sure you know from your Googling. Pollution and rising temperatures disproportionately effect poorer nations and minorities, as is well documented. Polluted water from chemical runoff is also well documented -- almost always in poorer areas.

Then there's the little matter that if we continue burning fossil fuels, we're toast. That effects poor people as well.

So what's your solution? I haven't heard any great suggestions yet. And I won't hold my breath.

"Clean up the environment!" "Raise up the poor!" Never thinking for a moment that these two objectives are in conflict — fishfry

They're not in conflict, except in your mind. The poor are suffering anyway, under the greed and pollution of the fossil fuel industry. They already struggle to pay their energy bills, already die of cancers at a greater rate, etc. Again to say nothing of the global consequences for everyone.

We don't like the Democrats' proposals? Fine. Then let's make them better. What are your Republican friends offering? Have they made it a priority? No. Do they believe it a problem? No. What do they say instead? "Don't worry about it, it's a liberal hoax."

Yeah, no difference to see there.

You exemplify the type. — fishfry

And you exemplify a typical right-wing climate denier. Fairly easy to spot, and very common.

Again, not surprising from the guy who spouts 9/11 conspiracies, backs state-sponsored terrorism and defends the murder of children.

What you exemplify, in fact, is the thesis of the OP: you're worth leaving behind.

Can't compromise with sheer delusion.

By “bipartisan” do you mean working together? — DingoJones

Yes.

(In the US since 1980) "bipartisan" = status quo. — 180 Proof

Indeed. I'd argue even prior to 1980. They come together on the 600 billion dollar gift to defense contractors every year, though -- so there's that.

Yeah but die among whom? The public? Political Pundits? I honestly think at this point that it's just a fetish among the political elites at the point. — Saphsin

Political pundits, yes -- but mostly the public. It's hard to say exactly whether the public even wants "bipartisanship" anymore, but if they do then yes, that idea should die.

But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals. — James Riley

In some cases, but in many cases in the last 40 years they've been fairly complicit and have lurched rightward. Only now, with Bernie and AOC and others, have you seen a real push towards trying to raise the standards to those of Mexico, Germany, Australia, etc. I hope they continue to push the Democrats farther.

However, when it comes to climate change it's not even a matter of liberal or conservative -- or shouldn't be. That's in fact been manufactured by the Koch network and other fossil fuel interests. It shouldn't be partisan any more than an asteroid should be. But here we are. So it's less about right/left than about rational and irrational/suicidal. True, those on the right line up more with the latter, but not all of them do -- especially the younger conservatives. They want something done as well.

But because it's been successfully paired with being a "liberal" agenda, a "tree hugging" agenda, the Trump crowd shut their ears. It was only a few years ago Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, etc., were all in favor of climate change mitigation.

The Koch's changed that by associating it with liberals, and since conservatives have had it beaten into their heads for 30 years that liberals are evil, anti-America, and condescending destroyers of "their" culture, climate change became "controversial," part of a left-wing conspiracy. Smart move by the Koch's. The tobacco industry should have done that -- just made it a "liberal" thing to stop smoking. They did to a degree, but the public wasn't quite primed enough yet for it.

That's funny, I thought it's the left that does that. Racists who claim to be anti-racist. Fascists who claim to be anti-fascist. Global elitists who claim to be against wealth inequality. People who live in gated communities with private security forces who want to defund the police so that more poor people can get killed. — fishfry

The old "I'm rubber you're glue" ploy.

there's not a hare's breath (or a hair's breadth, never know which one it is) between the left and the right in the US — fishfry

You're living in 2014 still. That may have been true then (it wasn't, but at least it wasn't completely ridiculous a claim), but it's simply absurd now. There's a very real difference between the left and the right these days. Take the one example I gave: climate change. That alone should tell you a difference.

The reason there's so much enmity between the two sides is that they are fighting on the margins about things that don't matter all that much; while the big things are ignored. That's how the global elite and the military/intelligence/media/industrial complex like it. — fishfry

I wouldn't call climate change or wealth inequality the "margins." One party at least acknowledges both are problems and makes proposals to deal with them -- in renewables, in a wealth tax, in corporate tax hikes, etc. Not close to enough, but something. The other says neither are problems.

If you can't see that difference, you're simply stuck in the past.

It comes through loud and clear in your framing of the situation. And yes, I'm in favor of peace -- which is why I'm in favor of a two-state solution, blocked for decades by Israel and the United States.