Well said. I'm surprised climate change wasn't up there on your list, though. Because in this area the contrast is even MORE striking.

I don’t even want to talk about this subject for more than 5 minutes because it’s one small step out of a thousand to think about. — Saphsin

Again, good instincts.

In a more rational world, 97% of the electorate would simply push the button and then get back to the hard work of pursuing their political goals.

Yeah I just read that -- apologies for beating a dead horse.

And I own it with pride — Merkwurdichliebe

You take pride in defeatism and fatalism? You're welcome.

You're on a moving train. One track goes off the cliff, the other goes over a rickety, dangerous bridge. These are the only options, because you're on a moving train. What do you choose?

Now, if you're sane, and chose the obvious track -- should you feel shame or guilt at jeopardizing the lives of all the passengers?

Well if you're right, we're completely screwed. So we can give up now, or we can give ourselves some hope, however minor it might be. I don't see an alternative.
— Xtrix

I prefer to abandon all hope, and talk shit as the free world eats itself alive. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, that's your business.

I'm just saying, Biden will change very little that matters. Fucks sake, Obama was infinitely better than Biden has ever been or ever could be. If he turned out to be a lackey of the status quo, what do you think will happen with Biden? — Merkwurdichliebe

I had no illusions about Obama either. But when you say that Biden is worse, I don't know what you mean. I'm not interested so much in the personality or history of the individual -- including Trump. I care about the policies that are enacted. And many of Biden's policies, thanks to the Sanders' wing, are the most progressive yet.

Right, I forgot about that, sorry. Brain just went "W lost the popular vote in 2000" -> "W presidency was not won by popular vote", so I scanned backward to HW as the most recent Republican popular victory. — Pfhorrest

Still, your point is well taken. One popular vote win out of the last 7 is still not a great record. Demographics can't change quickly enough. There's hope the younger generation is pretty engaged already.

But, I can also guarantee that Biden is an equal and opposite piece of shit to Trump, and his apparrent shift farther to the left is a mere a ploy to attract votes. Once elected, he will carry on with the status quo, and everything will continue to get more fucked. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well if you're right, we're completely screwed. So we can give up now, or we can give ourselves some hope, however minor it might be. I don't see an alternative.

Technically, yes it is speculation. Anything that is predicted to happen but has not yet become an actuality is speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe

I guess it's speculation that the sun will rise tomorrow, then. Fine.

True, we can believe Trump is perhaps visited by 3 ghosts this Christmas and changes his entire personality and attitude towards the world. But let's try to be serious about it.

I'm just saying: voting for a monster like Biden in particular implicates you, and you had better work to srcub the filth off yourself in whatever practical way you can after the fact. Perhaps you recognize this. I'm not convinced many do. — StreetlightX

Hopefully many don't. To shame people for making the right choice, as if they fully endorse Biden, is so childish as to be embarrassing. I expect nothing less from you, though.

Yes I am responsible for a less worse administration, and then my responsibility for the rest of the 4 years is fighting against the current administration. There are two available choices. I don’t know where this alternative 3rd reality where I have less political responsibility for the current state of affairs exists, vote abstinence has consequences and that’s what I also have responsibility for if I choose to. This additional political debt thing if you “also” vote is some intangible magical substance you cooked up, not empirical analysis. This is terrible political philosophy. — Saphsin

Yes. But you said it: the reason is because people over-emphasize the importance of voting. Yes, it is important -- especially now. Why? Because we'd like to at least survive as a species, and if the minor political act of voting helps mitigate the threat of annihilation, we should do it -- even if we don't agree with the two-party system or fully endorse the "less evil" candidate. That's not what a vote for Biden means.

*shrug* If you want to act like voting takes you off the hook then so be it. Enjoy the continued decline of the world which you would be responsible for while pretending you're not. — StreetlightX

Of course we're all responsible. Given the system we're currently in, in the real world, we make our decisions. Voting is a minor one, but there's no question that we should do it. But the real work is done every day, and it will continue.

I'd love to change the two-party system -- I'd also love to not have to participate in the capitalist system -- but I live in the real world. If I'm complicit and share responsibility for participating in it, so be it -- the degree is so minor that to dwell on this or emphasize it is pretty absurd.

We already can speculate on all the fucked up shit Trump will do if reelected, he has a definitive track record. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not speculation -- there's four years of it. It WILL continue for the next four more years -- there's no reason to believe the opposite.

Enacting that would basically bypass the electoral college, and in doing so probably doom the Republican party in its entirety, since they haven't won a popular vote in over 30 years. — Pfhorrest

Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

Some states allocate electors based on the national popular vote. So yes, if you want Biden, vote Biden. — frank

What states? I don't know what you're talking about. You mean the state's popular vote?

If you feel shameful for voting, you’re putting waaaay too much emotional and symbolic significance into that one act. — Saphsin

Another very good point. But I sympathize with those who do -- Biden is awful, and Bernie was much, much better. If I thought not voting, or voting for Trump or third party, would truly make a difference (and fairly quickly), I would consider it. But there's just no evidence of that whatsoever and, given what I view as the most important issue (climate change) and the limited time left to deal with it, I have to cast my vote for Biden and then, like your saying, continue on pushing him (and the DNC) towards progressive policies. It's actually worked so far -- we've seen in in his climate policies alone. Whether or not they get enacted is beside the point, he has been pushed left. So Sanders' campaign is a huge success in just that respect alone.



Exactly right.

I wish I was as clear and articulate as that 90+ year old man.

This time around, he's been saying that even in a "safe" state, one should vote Biden -- just to run up the score. It's the first time I've ever heard Chomsky say this.

THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON THE INCUMBENT. FULL STOP. — 180 Proof

My takeaway from the exchange in this thread is that the left really cannot help but fracture itself with ideological arguments. — Echarmion

Neither is the right, but they seem to do a better job of putting aside differences to access the power of unity. — frank

Voting for Biden is such an obvious decision, it's something the Left (or what I call the Left, the activists who are in tune with the reality of the ground) should talk about for 10 minutes and then shut the hell up and spend the rest of the year on other politics (unless you live in a swing state and want to increase turn out or something). — Saphsin

As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. — StreetlightX

And Biden? Sure, vote for him. It would be a deeply shameful act — StreetlightX

personally my vote goes to a Harris Administration. — Kevin

All of this makes sense enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vsrm1J-QzQ

Sorry, it's not that "aletheia" “may be translated” as "truth". Heidegger's very concept of truth is "not covered" or "uncovered" and is opposed to the false or hidden. You can see this in the underlined words (by me) of Heidegger himself. — David Mo

All of which agree entirely with what I'm saying.

When I say "may be translated," I mean exactly that. "Unconcealment" is another way, which Heidegger prefers. Not because "truth" isn't accurate in translation, but because the association "truth" has as "correct assertion" doesn't capture the Greek sense of aletheia.

No juggling. In fact, very straightforward. It takes juggling not to see it.

Therefore, when he says that the concealment of Being begins with Plato and Aristotle he is saying that the metaphysical path that follows them is wrong, inadequate, incorrect or whatever you want to say. These are similar words to express the same idea of failure. — David Mo

No, they aren't. To take "wrong" as being "incorrect" is absurd, and this is not what he says. Ever.

If to be "hidden" is to be "wrong," that's your own business.

"Inadequate" may be fine, as long as it means that their thinking was "privative," leaving out and concealing some aspects of the world. Doesn't make them "incorrect" any more than science is "incorrect."

He speaks of Aristotle or Kant with respect in some relevant points. — David Mo

In every point. He has nothing but respect for these men. If you've missed this, then I suggest reading Being and Time rather than searching for words and phrases piecemeal, as you've been doing. Allows one to understand the context.

Heidegger did not know much about contemporary physics. — David Mo

Oh, good to know. :roll:

Of course, some similarities can be established between modern science and Aristotle. But not the concept or the structure of science. This is one of Heidegger's false assumptions. — David Mo

You don't know what Heidegger assumes, because you don't understand Heidegger.

The talk about science was my own, not Heidegger's. I used it as an example, which you unsurprisingly don't understand.

No one is claiming modern science directly rests on Aristotle's philosophy.

An increase in the greenhouse effect isn't a danger to human life (as far as scientists know). — frank

You don't know what you're talking about.

What should we do until then? There isn't a whole lot the average individual can do to influence things one way or another. If you want to position yourself in a safer place, move away from the coast and head north. Otherwise, enjoy life to the max. Life is short. — frank

Your entire take on this is almost nauseating.

Yes, sit back and do nothing. Enjoy life. Nothing else to see here. You'll certainly be admired by future generations.

In the meantime, I'll stick with what climatologists say over an internet poster.

If you had not mutilated the phrase you would have realized that the ordinary interpretation is "in" Aristotle already. — David Mo

They're not the same. This was my point, which you tried, and failed, to show was incorrect with that passage.

The ordinary way of understanding time (1) is made explicit in Aristotle's interpretation (2). That's not a "mutilation," that's the passage itself.

I call your attention, in case you get lost in trtanslation :joke: , to the fact that the accusation against Aristotle is not banal, it is of "concealment". — David Mo

Concealment does not mean "wrong." If aletheia means un-concealment, and this often gets translated as "truth," then this is what was meant by "truth" to the early Greeks. Later on, truth comes to mean "correct assertion," and "wrong" (as "incorrect") becomes its opposite. That does not mean "concealed," in Heidegger or in the Greeks, means "wrong" in the sense of incorrect or in any other sense. Being "concealed" does not mean "wrong" in any way. It simply means it's hidden. This is a mistake you continually make.

Is viewing things as present-at-hand "wrong"?

Of course not.
— Xtrix
It depends on the use you want to make of it. — David Mo

The use is very clear in Heidegger. To view things as present-at-hand is to naturally conceal the ready-to-hand aspects, bringing other aspects to the fore. "Wrong" plays no role whatsoever.

But when the ontology claims to be based on them, they are a serious impediment. — David Mo

Sure, it's an impediment to seeing what gets left out, to what gets hidden, etc. Very true.

Such procedures are facilitated by the unexpressed but ontologically dogmatic guiding thesis that what is (in other words, anything so factual as the call) must be present-at-hand, and that what does not let
itself be Objectively demonstrated as present-at-hand, just is not at all. (B&T: 275/320)
Is it not clear for you? — David Mo

Very clear.

I don't see this in Heidegger and he's given me no reason to. I think a claim like "Aristotle is wrong" is so childish I'd be embarrassed to say it.
— Xtrix

Well, I have already given you a good number of quotations in which Heidegger explains the error that Aristotle begins and continues throughout metaphysics. — David Mo

It's not an error, and it's not wrong. Those terms have no relevance whatsoever. What happens in Aristotle is that the original notion of being as "phusis" (unconcealed sway), while still "in" Aristotle, becomes even more concealed (as "ousia"), and sets the stage for getting solidified into self-evidence. Ditto with time. Thus, it makes it much harder for later philosophers, who take over Aristotle's position, to question "being" or "time" -- they become concealed, "closed off." Heidegger wants to re-awaken the questioning of the early Greeks.

To use words like "wrong" or "error" is, at best, very misleading. And very presumptuous. It's something I'd expect from a first year undergraduate: "Heidegger claims that all Western thinkers, including Aristotle, are completely wrong."

The words matter.

What seems childish to me is that you pretend to seek how to understand the world and its history and do not want to accept that there are explanations that are correct and others that are incorrect. — David Mo

Correct or incorrect have to be defined in a context before this makes any sense. In the sciences, I think it's very sensible to talk this way. I think some propositions and theories turn out to be wrong in many ways, or even completely so. If history teaches us anything, it's that we're almost certainly wrong about many things right now, given our goals and purposes. I don't pretend otherwise.

Is there no true or false? Anything goes? — David Mo

In logic, in mathematics, in the sciences, in ethics, and in everyday life -- yes of course there's true and false. But always within a context. If your goal is to lose weight, then eating apple pie everyday is "wrong," etc. We don't define "true" or "false" in a vacuum.

But none of this applies to Heidegger's analysis. If it did, it would essentially mean that science is "wrong," since science's "founding fathers" held assumptions and beliefs which were rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and emphasize the present-at-hand objectification of nature. If you really want to interpret it this way, again I say: you're welcome to. But I don't go along with it, and think it's childish.

One fundamental question you must answer: What does "wrong" mean to you? If you don't answer, I'm afraid this conversation is definitely blocked. — David Mo

"Wrong" either means incorrect or morally "bad." That's the ordinary usage. We'll discount the latter, because we're not discussing morality. The former refers to logic, in the sense of assertions and propositions and laws of thought. All that is perfectly fine with me. (And Heidegger.)

They just happen not to apply to Heidegger's analysis of the Greeks, as you claim they do.

This task as a whole requires that the conception of time thus obtained shall be ditinguished from the way in which it is ordinarily understood. This ordinary way of understanding it has become explicit in an interpretation precipitated in the traditional concept of time, which has persisted from

You have trouble reading, I think. That's fine. But ask yourself: what is it that has become explicit in an Aristotle's interpretation?

Answer: The ordinary conception. They're not the same. Related, but not the same.

lead irremediably and directly to error means to be wrong ( defective, faulty, flawed, inadequate, insufficient, lacking and so). Is it not? — David Mo

Yes, but as I've grown tired of saying: translations of terms is a different topic, and they're often wrong (according too Heidegger). You're stuck in confusing this with a sweeping generalization of all Western thought, which is based on "presence."

Is viewing things as present-at-hand "wrong"?

Of course not.

that of Aristotle. No. It is about truth versus error. — David Mo

Well at least this is consistent with your view that Heidegger has a messiah complex. He'd have to be like that to make such a claim - I.e., that he has the "truth" (as "correct") and Aristotle is "wrong" (incorrect). By all means interpret it that way - no surprise, since you started with that assumption. You see what you hope to see.

I don't see this in Heidegger and he's given me no reason to. I think a claim like "Aristotle is wrong" is so childish I'd be embarrassed to say it. I don't care about right and wrong, I'm interested in understanding the world and its history. Perhaps Aristotle and the Greeks missed certain things. Perhaps Galileo and Newton did. Perhaps everyone has. No doubt we have (and are) missing plenty of things right now, and 99% what we believe right now will turn out to be misguided, limited, etc.

The only thing interesting to look at is what we do with our time and lives. We can't understand that fully if we hold on to dogmas. Heidegger, like Aristotle and Nietzsche (and perhaps even Marx), etc., was someone who was able to look at everything and question it. Some "things" remain concealed even to Heidegger, as they did for Aristotle. This is why he constantly emphasizes questioning -- hardly egotistical. This is why he's saying there is probably a more fundamental "horizon" that is yet to be discovered, and why he talks endlessly about "openness" and "resoluteness."

Or we can take the attitude that Heidegger views himself as being "right" while Aristotle is "wrong," much like modern scientists do about the Greeks.

Civilization may be doomed to collapse (though we truly don't know if it will). Humanity isn't doomed. — frank

Humans can't survive if the earth becomes like Venus.

:kiss:

:gasp: How edgy.

You're truly the Trump of the forum.

Yeah, because your solution - doing nothing, while complaining like a teen - is the "real" solution.

Stick to Twitter. ;)

Indeed.

Adults are talking. Quiet.

Ah sleeping. About as much good as expecting Biden to do shit I guess. — StreetlightX

We should all do what you do: write like an angsty teenager on a philosophy forum. I.e., nothing.

Dime a dozen. :yawn:

No, I don't care if Trump suffers. I prefer it if others didn't suffer.

:yawn:

I'm not suggesting killing anyone.

You've demonstrated, over and over again, that you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Use your super-edgy, adolescent cynicism on someone else. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.

To 'give up' on Biden and his cronies is not to 'give up', unless your horizon of action is as narrow as a prick. — StreetlightX

Yes, it is giving up. No matter how much I dislike Biden, if we don't continue to push for legislation, we're guaranteeing nothing happens. This is true for any administration.

It's an easy position to take - this way we can look superior from behind our computers while doing no work, like most political hobbyists. You're welcome to it.

Heidegger explicitly says that the ordinary interpretation of time derived from Aristotle does not go beyond the ontic level. — David Mo

No, he doesn't. The ordinary conception of time and Aristotle's interpretation of time are two different things. It is not "derived" from Aristotle.

Almost everything that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard) needs correction. It's boring. Stop talking and start listening.

How do you deal with this "error"? — David Mo

:yawn:

But I don’t actually think he ought to suffer or die, because nobody ought to. — Pfhorrest

I have to say, I'm more in favor of him dying. I don't care whether he suffers. Sounds terrible, yes, but from my point of view it would (possibly) benefit the future of the human species. I feel the same way about Americans who continually vote for him - their dying off is a good thing in general.

The reason we should drop talk of "doom" is that it isn't based on science. When that's the primary message coming from climate change acceptors, it undermines their cause. The climate is changing. We will change with it. — frank

Compete nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. And it's exactly this kind of attitude which will accelerate the problem. True, maybe some kind of human existence can survive...is that an argument?

And yes, the US is the world leader. What it does matters enormously on the world stage. That includes climate change.

Yes indeed. Well said.

Biden's corporate trash and the idea he and his party might stand as any kind of bulwark against climate change is wishful thinking in the extreme. — StreetlightX

I don't think it's probable that anything necessary (revolutionary) gets passed, but we have to try to push them to. If we give up, it guarantees nothing gets done.

Doomed? How? — frank

In countless ways, but climate change being the major one.