• Xtrix
    2.8k
    We are not to be blamed for the decisions we do not make.god must be atheist

    Oh but we are. We voted for them. If we didn’t, we could have protested more, could have tried convincing more people to do so as well, etc etc.

    So any American who criticizes their government is a hypocrite. That’s been argued plenty of times too by apologists of state power. You happen to do so for corporate power.

    The using of society's benefits IS your decision.god must be atheist

    So now fossil fuels are societies “benefits.” Seems to me they’re environment-destroying garbage and a curse for the human species. But call it what you will, I guess. Maybe wiping out the species is a “benefit.”

    So those addicted to tobacco and opioids are also hypocrites. Got it. No right to criticize big Pharma for the opioid epidemic. It was their choice to use “societies benefits.”

    At least be consistent about it.

    If the capitalist pigs, as you call them,god must be atheist

    I haven’t once called them that. Ever. But keep trying.

    You don't use them because the capitalists force you to, you use them because without them you'd perish.god must be atheist

    No we wouldn’t. There are plenty of alternatives — called renewables.

    The reason we currently would “perish” is not an accident — it’s a choice. And not mine. For the same reason we don’t have proper public transportation. That’s not an accident either. Yet you want to place the blame on those who are forced to buy a car to get to work so they can eat and live? No — like the Iraq war, I place the blame on those in power who have the means to design the modern world and make choices about whether to fund renewable energy, public transit, and EV vehicles, or stick with combustible engines, individual consumption, and fossil fuels.
  • Xtrix
    2.8k
    Public transportation is just as much available as ever.god must be atheist

    No, it isn’t. This is factually wrong. I’m talking about the US.

    The decline of availability and convenience of public transportation happened not due to capitalists closing down railway lines and making city bus service less frequent... it's because people like to get into cars, drive to somewhere, and then drive back again.god must be atheist

    You just have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m afraid. There’s actually scholarship on this point— from history to polling. People want efficient public transit — not cars. Compare the US to Japan, for example, and the state of our public transit is a joke. That’s NOT an accident, and it’s NOT because people “love cars” — although many do, in no small part to great advertising.

    But believe it’s all the consumers and demand, if you want. A nice myth.
  • Joshs
    2.3k
    People want efficient public transit — not cars.Xtrix

    I live in Chicago. There is an El station two blocks away, a bus stop across the street from my building , a regular train line a few miles from me, and rental scooters and bicycles every few blocks.
    And yet I pay $180 a month to park my car in my building’s garage, plus license, sticker and maintenance fees. Why? Because having my own car is a bit more convenient that using public transportation. If I were poor it might be a different story. Am I typical? I know Chicagoans who don’t own cars, but they’re in the minority. Most feel the way I do about the convenience of a car even in a city with good public transportation. I’m not saying I’m proud of my choice , just being honest.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    @Banno @180 Proof & others

    What caught my eye regarding the philosophy of Being

    Every time Being is analyzed, it takes a distinct form, a linguistic one - necessary language concepts for such examinations/studies being verb, predicate, verbal nouns, pseudo-objects, to name but a few.

    What means this?

    It's as if Being is tied up with the structure of and ideas in lingua itself. We can't talk about the former without going into the intricacies (those pertinent) of the other.
  • god must be atheist
    3.5k
    What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you?
    — god must be atheist

    You should have flagged it.
    Srap Tasmaner

    There would have been no response, was my summary estimation and I had a very tangible reason to expect that. I had just gone through a very similar episode with another member and please spare me from having to repeat the details. I appealed to two moderators; one was unsympathetic and dismissed the severity of the insults I received; the other was more sympathetic and advised the two of us to cut it out, which we both did.

    So next time this sort of thing happens, can I appeal to you personally, instead of going into a visceral and bitter fight? and if you do advise to appeal to you, do you personally promise to intervene at such times that it's needed? I ask you this, because you advised me to flag it, so I understand that you'd find it actionable. So I do expect some action from you if I flag a post and you agree at the time that this would be in the realm actionable.

    Please respond, I respectfully ask you to. I understand you are a moderator, with executive powers.
  • god must be atheist
    3.5k
    You have wrapped the argument that everyone who enjoys the benefits of living in a modern industrialized society shares some measure of blame for climate change in a claim that for them to say otherwise is hypocritical. That strikes me as kind of an odd way to frame the point. It suggests that you are more interested in whether people are being hypocritical than what they’re being hypocritical about.Srap Tasmaner

    You are very astute in noticing this, and you are absolutely right. That was my precise point. It is a two-pronged argument: one is that we are indeed each individually adding to the cumulative effect of global warming. This is what is the basis of the argument, and I believe this is true, otherwise I would not be arguing it. The second part of the argument is based on my judging of what is fair and what is not. It is fair to say that we are all contributing; it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing. This is a moral stand, not a mechanical-logical argument. The mechanical-logical argument was wrapped up in the first part. This second part seems odd to you as a frame, because I do believe it is perhaps original as a moral point of view and moral judgment. I believe this is not a false view, and that is why I advocate it. It is a valid view, and people just have not been considering it, because everyone else (other than me) has sheepishly bought into the argument that my debating opponent presents.

    Was I harsh in calling people hypocritical? Please consider viewing my moral argument here in the odd but I believe valid moral point of view, and I am quite certain that then you will see that my accusation was not ungrounded in saying that people who exclude themselves and many others from the blame of causing global warming are, indeed, hypocritical.
  • StreetlightX
    7.8k
    The hypocrisy charge is so vacuous and irrelevant that it is a literal meme.

    Intelligent.jpg

    That we are complicit in capitalism - and of course we are - is yet another mark against it, yet another reason to see the back of it. Not some kind of childish gotchya moment.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3.3k
    can I appeal to you personallygod must be atheist

    Sure.
  • Joshs
    2.3k


    Every time Being is analyzed, it takes a distinct form, a linguistic one - necessary language concepts for such examinations/studies being verb, predicate, verbal nouns, pseudo-objects, to name but a few.TheMadFool

    Heidegger agrees with you.

    “… are we puzzled now only because we have allowed ourselves to be led astray by language or, more precisely, by the grammatical interpretation of language; staring at an It that is supposed to give, but that itself is precisely not there. When we say "It gives Being," “It gives time," we are speaking sentences.
    Grammatically, a sen­tence consists of a subject and a predicate. The subject of a sentence is not necessarily a subject in the sense of an ego or a person. Grammar and logic, accordingly, construe it-sentences as imper­sonal, subject-less sentences.”(On Time and Being)
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3.3k


    It helps if you know that the common way to say ”There is ...” in German is “Es gibt ...”, which is literally “It gives ...” It’s an impersonal construction like “It’s raining.”
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k


    Why does this happen? What's distinct/unique about Being that requires us to be, well, expert linguists with in-depth knowledge of, curiously, not semantics but syntax. :chin: The objective was to go into meaning (of Being) and instead we're neck-deep in grammar.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3.3k
    I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being.Srap Tasmaner

    So, I missed the point then?

    You do admit though that compared to other branches of philosophy, ontology requires extensive knowledge of grammar, right?
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3.3k
    You do admit thoughTheMadFool

    Of course I don't. I explained an idiom, and its bearing on a quote, that's it.
  • Joshs
    2.3k
    Why does this happen? What's distinct/unique about Being that requires us to be, well, expert linguists with in-depth knowledge of, curiously, not semantics but syntax. :chin: The objective was to go into meaning (of Being) and instead we're neck-deep in grammar.TheMadFool

    It’s not just Being. Every significant change in philosophical outlook will be reflected in at least a subtle shift in the use of grammar. Why is this? Because grammar is more than just syntax. It expresses historically ingrained habits of thinking about object and subjects and their relationship. Subject-predicate structure disposes us toward construing is a certain way.

    “If I say "the floor is hard," I employ a language system in which the subject-predicate relationship inheres in the subject itself. It is the floor which is hard, and that is its nature, regardless of who says so. The statement stands, not because the speaker said it, but because the floor happened to be what it is. The sentence's validity stems from the floor and not from the speaker.”(George Kelly)
  • Joshs
    2.3k
    ↪TheMadFool I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being.Srap Tasmaner

    But one needs to be aware that our handed-down grammar biases us toward a certain way of thinking about subjects and objects that Heidegger rightly points out is ‘impersonal’.

    In ‘Logic as the Question Concerning The Essence of Language' Heidegger tells us he wants, 'in a confrontation with the tradition', to rethink logic, to "revolutionarily shake up the notion of logic" from the ground up, but that he can only provisionally point to his notion of the primordial ground of language as the basis of this new grounding of logic. Traditionally, language is thought as a tool of thinking, as secondary to thinking, as grounded on grammar, which in turn is grounded on logic. Heidegger says “the first thing we need is a real revolution in our relation to language.”

    “Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar?”(Nietzsche, Will to Power)
  • god must be atheist
    3.5k
    Sure.Srap Tasmaner

    Thanks. I appreciate that.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3.3k
    But one needs to be aware that our handed-down grammar biases us toward a certain way of thinkingJoshs

    Well, there's a lot to say about language. I wasn't wading into those waters, and I'm still not, but don't let me stop you.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    What is Being?

    It's (as is obvious) a verb (being) cum noun (Being). Very much like Jogging, a verb (he is jogging) & a noun (he likes Jogging). :grin:
  • Banno
    15.1k
    It's as if Being is tied up with the structure of and ideas in lingua itself. We can't talk about the former without going into the intricacies (those pertinent) of the other.TheMadFool

    If one stops looking for meaning and instead looks at what we do with language, then this does not seem surprising. The command "Block!" supposes that there are blocks to bring. Language is integrated into the world.

    See my answer to your question int he Free Logic thread:

    This is may well be the foundation of philosophy in the 20th Century, following the work fo Frege. His logic forms a simple language of predicates, allowing us to see the supposition of attributing predicates to individuals at the base of language.

    But unfortunately this insight here fell into the fog of phenomenology, which tries to found existence on sensations rather than on language, and ends up confusing being with time and failing to clarify much of anything.
  • Joshs
    2.3k
    Frege’s logic forms a simple language of predicates, allowing us to see the supposition of attributing predicates to individuals at the base of language.

    But unfortunately this insight here fell into the fog of phenomenology, which tries to found existence on sensations rather than on language, and ends up confusing being with time and failing to clarify much of anything.
    Banno

    What Frege lacked was insight into the basis of the subject-predicate structure. Husserl led the way here by founding predication not on sensation but on intentional synthesis. It took Heidegger, and later on Derrida, to arrive at a notion of the origin of both formal language and logic in signification.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    Meh. Much the same thing was developed at the same time by Russel, Wittgenstein et al. but without the metaphysical nonsense.

    But also that's not fair to Frege, since it is his analysis of sense and denotation, and hence of intensional logic, that was pivotal in both accounts: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/#Fre

    The intention leads to the intension.
  • Joshs
    2.3k
    Much the same thing was developed at the same time by Russel, Wittgenstein et al. but without the metaphysical nonsense.Banno

    Russell and Frege leave us mired in a Kantian metaphysical thicket, which Wittgenstein realized and rejected in favor of his later phenomenological approach.
  • Xtrix
    2.8k


    I think you’re typical of someone who can afford a car in the city, yes. There’s also many people around Boston who feel the same way— but you have to account for the fact that the T here is CRAP. They’re 50 years being. If you had efficient, high-speed rail — like they do in Japan — there wouldn’t be this issue. In parts of Canada, they have it designed so that buses run constantly and within a mile or so radius of homes.

    Advertising plays a big role in all this too. Just like smoking. When it was decided, by tobacco executives, that they were losing money by not targeting women, there was a massive campaign to get women to smoke. And it worked. Car commercials and product placement in the US has created a culture around cars that is unprecedented, starting in the 50s especially.

    So yes, of course the consumer shares some of the blame. That’s not the point. In the same sense we share blame for our government’s actions — because we elected decision-makers. But the blame is relative. To attempt to equalize it all, or to shift emphasis to “individual responsibility,” deliberately leaves out an important context in which powers far greater than an average consumer are at play — openly.
  • Xtrix
    2.8k
    it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing.god must be atheist

    Not once did I say that. Next time, at least do me the courtesy of assuming I’m not a complete idiot. Of course we all contribute to global warming. I figured this was so obvious as to not need to explicitly point it out.

    But switch the example. Take the opioid crisis here in the states. People addicted to opioids share responsibility too, yes? Does that level of blame equal the blame of doctors and pharmaceutical companies who deliberately over-prescribed and downplayed the addictiveness?

    I don’t see how anyone could argue that. I’ll give you the benefit of assuming you don’t think that either. So why make the same mistake with climate change? Are you not aware that this argument is a very common one among climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry? Are you aware it’s exactly the defense big tobacco offered for decades with regard to the health effects of smoking?
  • Xtrix
    2.8k
    I think an important point being overlooked is that we’re always acting in the world with an understanding of being— just not a theoretical understanding. Almost like a folk science. That’s not science, but it’s what humans act on the basis of.

    So much of our meanings are culturally dependent. The same is true for being. Being is nearly always interpreted (in the west) in terms of the “world,” whether as material object or as “nature.” It’s hard to imagine an alternative.

    It’s also worth remembering why this matters: because we define ourselves in these terms as well. And why is that so important?

    Because those serves as the basis for morality, for social organization, for politics, for global decisions. The world is currently operating on the belief that earth is a resource, that the ultimate aim of humans is material wealth accumulation, and that humans are essentially animals with language with needs to satisfy.

    That’s the current story. And it’s based in beliefs and interpretations about being, held tacitly and handed down over many centuries — and it’s driving us right into disaster.

    So a follow-up question: what do we do about it?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.