The world I find myself in is the world as it is, preemptive of my considerations of it. — Mww

Well, this can’t be the first thing you say. It’s a conclusion, right? You have to have some ideas about the world and what’s in it, and yourself, and how you relate to the world. There’s just a lot presumed here. Maybe we say this later, but it can’t be how you start.

we don’t care that we find ourselves in a world — Mww

Basically, yes — at least in the sense that we might recognize a tendency to overlook the fact that we’re in a world, that in everyday life we take it for granted, and in philosophizing ... that’s a long story.

I mean, where else would we be found — Mww

But, see, that’s gold! That’s an a priori claim, right? So this is a reasonable starting point, and all Heidegger does is take exactly this and think it through: alright, so what is a world? what does it mean to be in one? why don’t we notice, since, with just a little reflection, you’re inclined to think it is an obvious truth that there’s a world and we’re in it?

if we are found in the world, then everything else we can know about must be found in the same world — Mww

And then this is the next thing — although Heidegger keeps fiddling with the order in Being and Time, because reasons. Are the things we find in the world “in” it the same way we are? How hard is it to see that the answer has to be “no”?

When Wittgenstein mentions the possibility of writing a book called “The world as I found it,” he intends to make the point that the “I” in the title can’t be in the book. But we just agreed that it’s perfectly obvious we find ourselves in a world, so what gives? The natural thing to say is just that we’re ‘in’ the world in a way that is different from the way things that can go in the book (the proverbial tables and trees, say) are ‘in’ the world.

This is all Heidegger is doing in Division I of Being and Time, working through the consequences of these thoughts.

when we really want to know what constitutes the world that we’re in — Mww

And that means not just considering the things we find there, but also what makes the world we find ourselves in a world. One maneuver here is to, shall we say, ‘situate’ the confrontation between subject and object: he notes, almost in passing, that the sort of paradigm case for philosophers — looking at a table, that kind of thing — is actually a specific behavior, and a little odd, and shouldn’t be assumed to be representative of how we deal with the things we find in the world. He’ll flesh that out by giving his analysis of how we do usually interact with things, at length.

At the very least, there’s the simple point that the universe does not consist of a philosopher and the table he gazes at thinkingly; there’s the whole rest of the world around them and they’re each in it.

Any of this seem sensible to you? My Kant-fu is weak, and I’ve only lately been reading Heidegger again after many, many years, so my Heidegger-fu is similarly limited. I’m explaining as best I can as I go.

And now we face almost certain destruction at the hands of climate change, thanks in part to the greed and shortsightedness of the fossil fuel capitalists. — Xtrix

The greedy capitalists are NOT inciting you to drive your car, wear clothes, heat your apartment, cool the inside of your fridge. YOU are doing it, and so am I; time to stop blaming THEM, the greedy capitalists. They are not using, per head, or per capita, more energy than you and I use, and blaming them for providing us what we want and demand is HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL.

as a way of grounding the natural sciences, you need to write “The world I find myself in”. — Srap Tasmaner

The world I find myself in is the world as it is, preemptive of my considerations of it.
— Mww

Well, this can’t be the first thing you say. — Srap Tasmaner

As a way of grounding I take to mean the basis of, or, what comes first. The start. The given. It may not need to be the first thing said; the world I find myself in is so primordial I don’t need to say it.

On the other hand, to complete the phrase to a subject/copula/predicate proposition: the world I find myself in grounds the natural sciences, reduces to world/grounds/science, so “world” is the first thing I say after all. Superfluous to be sure, but still......
————

I mean, where else would we be found
— Mww

So this is a reasonable starting point, and all Heidegger does is take exactly this and think it through, alright, so what is a world? what does it mean to be in one? — Srap Tasmaner

Ahhhh, well....that’s a different thinking through. What is a world and what does it mean to be in one presupposes the world I find myself in, and these are the very considerations I first mentioned, that I make upon the world as a consequence of being in it. So yes, this is a reasonable place to start doing the natural sciences, but iff the possibility for them is already established. Those “a priori conditions” mentioned in your B & T quote.
———-

if we are found in the world, then everything else we can know about must be found in the same world
— Mww

And then this is the next thing — although Heidegger keeps fiddling with the order in Being and Time (....) Are the things we find in the world “in” it the same way we are? How hard is it to see that the answer has to be “no”? — Srap Tasmaner

Pretty hard for lil’ ol’ me, I must say. I don’t know how the fiddling works, so maybe there is a way that things are not in the world the same way I am. I’m a thing in the world, that thing wandering around in the night sky is in the world. “In” in the same way must have bearing somehow, apparently.
———-

At the very least, there’s the simple point that the universe does not consist of a philosopher and the table he gazes at thinkingly; there’s the whole rest of the world around them and they’re each in it. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but what explains how they all might not all be in it, all in the same way? At the risk of opening my mouth and sticking my foot in it....to say all things are not in the world all in the same way overturns the principle of parsimony. Which I suppose can be done, but I would think only with a parsimony deeper or more fundamental that the existent version.

Good stuff. Thanks for the highlights.

YOU are doing it, and so am I; time to stop blaming THEM, the greedy capitalists. They are not using, per head, or per capita, more energy than you and I use, and blaming them for providing us what we want and demand is HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL. — god must be atheist

:lol:

They must certainly DO use more fossil fuel, and most certainly DO compel people to use more fossil fuel. They, like tobacco before them, lobby Congress and have deliberately fooled people with misinformation.

You’d have been a great apologist for big tobacco as well, I’m sure. After all, “WE choose to smoke“, etc.

What a joke.

They must certainly DO use more fossil fuel, and most certainly DO compel people to use more fossil fuel. They, like tobacco before them, lobby Congress and have deliberately fooled people with misinformation.

You’d have been a great apologist for big tobacco as well, I’m sure. After all, “WE choose to smoke“, etc.

What a joke. — Xtrix

Xtrix: a most typical apologist to hypocritical fools. Fools who seek and found a scapegoat, whereas it's they, we, you, I, who are to blame -- we all are. Naysaying that only feeds the hypocrisy of your "my shit don't smell" attitude. Some people just can't take the blame when it's due. It's a spineless, cowardly attitude to blame others for one's own wrongdoing.

It's a spineless, cowardly attitude to blame others for your wrongdoing. — god must be atheist

:lol:

Promoting false equivalence for his corporate masters is what? Not cowardly, I suppose— just stupid and gullible?

False consciousness at its best.

“Your wrongdoing.” Yes— the tobacco companies didn’t deliberately add addictive chemicals to keep people hooked. Fossil fuel companies didn’t definitely cover up the affects on climate. This was all “my” doing— because I have driven in a car. Exactly the propaganda spewed by big oil: do your part, use better lightbulbs, recycle, etc. Well documented and clearly effective. Meanwhile they go on polluting with impunity while the planet burns, all for short term profit.

Blame is relative to one’s power. Those in power deserve more blame. But don’t worry your little head about that— keep with the stupid, simplistic “everyone is to blame” slogan.

Those poor capitalists! How unfair of us to criticize them!

Try keeping your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. It works wonders.

I eagerly await your Trump-like response.

Do continue, Xtrix. I was told to laugh off shit like the arguments you present.

Tell me again how stupid I am in your esteem and what lead you to that conclusion.

Do continue, Xtrix. I was told to laugh off shit like the arguments you present. — god must be atheist

I know you’ve been told that— probably for decades. Propaganda works wonders.

Tell me again how stupid I am in your esteem and what lead you to that conclusion. — god must be atheist

I didn’t say you were stupid— I said you were repeating stupid slogans.

Xtrix: if I am not stupid, then why would I repeat stupid slogans? Would a not stupid person repeat not stupid slogans instead? This is a discrepancy I need you to clarify for me.

Because I don't think you think of me as smart. I need your guidance. You said "I did not say you were stupid", but you may, just may, still think I am stupid. Not saying something does not equate denial of that something.

In that case I need things explained to me, one being, why a not stupid person would espouse (the in-word these days on this forum) stupid slogans? I depend on you to explain this to me.

if I am not stupid, then why would I repeat stupid slogans? — god must be atheist

You said so yourself: you’ve been told to “laugh at” certain ideas — like the fact that there’s such a thing as power differentials, and that with more power comes more blame.

People go through great lengths to defend capitalism — or any dogma they’ve been brought up to hold dear.

You keep saying "I suppose you would have been an excellent spokesperson for the tobacco lobby." This is not a verbatim quote, but a summary of a few quotes as opined by you.

Yes, this is your opinion. But you said it with such vehemence and conviction, that it came through as more than just an opinion, it came through as an attempt to convince others of the truth of your opinion.

This is fair game here. Apparently. What if someone said to you in conversation on these forums, in front of everyone, "Xtrix, you are in my opinion a mysogynist bastard, and you would have made a perfect rapist in a society where it's not punished by law." I am not saying this is my opinion; I am asking you that if hypothetically a person said this, what would your response be? Would you say that the assessment of you was fair, and he had the right to utter such opinion? If not, would you try to deny and refute the opinion's message, and would you try to defend against it?

People go through great lengths to defend capitalism — or any dogma they’ve been brought up to hold dear. — Xtrix

Maybe people do that. Sure. But what makes you so certain that I am practicing that behaviour? I simply pointed out to you who I think is to blame for an energy-using, consumerist society. You concluded from my opinion that I am repeating stupid slogans. There is a large gap between these two ideas, and I ask you to fill in the gap. After all, you made the conclusion, so you must have the steps envisioned that connects the two ideas. These steps only you are aware of, and therefore I ask you to reveal them to me on this public forum.

You started this conversation, not I. You responded to something I wrote and which wasn’t directed to you. You replied, addressing me specifically, with accusations of “hypocrisy” — in all caps, no less; all the while painting a ludicrous portrait of the argument and stating several falsehoods (e.g., that “they” don’t use more fossil fuels — they do) to boot.

So spare me this disingenuous lecture about manners. Ask anyone here and they’ll tell you: with me, you get what you give. That should be clear enough.

You said so yourself: you’ve been told to “laugh at” certain ideas — like the fact that there’s such a thing as power differentials, and that with more power comes more blame. — Xtrix

This is an error in your judgment, and severe error. I am not told to laugh off ideas that there are power differentials, and that with more power comes more to blame. I am told to laugh off personal attacks by other members that I feel offensive and are directed against me personally. You had no clue what I had been told, so you arbitrarily and shall I say erroneously substituted an idea that i had not been told, and now you believe that that's the idea I was told to laugh off.

Of course the wording you used, and keep on using, makes your utternances slippery. You did not outright say that that's the idea I was told to laugh off... you said that that's the idea, the LIKES OF WHICH I was told to laugh off.

So I would like to ask you this question: when and where and why did you learn that this type of insinuation is proper in a personal discourse? You are not saying anything, the wording you use has built-in defences, yet the utterances sound arrogantly insulting. You insinuate (but don't state) things that you want to accuse me with, but there is no accusation, only an insinuation of it.

This is not clear to many people. At first it was not clear to me, either, and now that I thought about it, and read and re-read your responses to my posts, it is clear that your utterances don't hold water, because they are not claims, only opinions, expressed in a form of wording that deny the accusations' validity.

Why do you do this? What satisfaction do you get out of this?

I simply pointed out to you who I think is to blame for an energy-using, consumerist society. — god must be atheist

No. You claimed that placing blame on “capitalists” was HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL, placing everyone in the company of the guilty— which is exactly what’s been promoted by those in power for decades. I mentioned one easy example: tobacco companies. That’s exactly right.

The slogans that we are all to blame are exactly that, and are indeed stupid and simpleminded. Maybe everyone, including slaves themselves, were equally responsible for the system of slavery? If that seems reasonable to you, you’re welcome.

I am not told to laugh off ideas that there are power differentials, and that with more power comes more to blame. — god must be atheist

Excellent— then you see the stupidity of repeating slogans like “we’re all to blame for climate change.” Sure— in the same way as we’re all to blame for the bombing of Iraq, and the many other war crimes and terrorism of the US (for those who live here, anyway). Does that mean I share equal blame with Rumsfeld?

Similarly, I drive a sedan — I have to to get to work. I can’t afford an electric car yet. Am I as much to blame for carbon emissions as Exxon? Again, these companies would love us to believe that — and have been promoting that nonsense for years. If you’re convinced by it, as you seem to be, then again: you’re welcome to. Just keep that bullshit away from me if you don’t want to have it called out for what it is.

So spare me this disingenuous lecture about manners. — Xtrix

No, I won't spare lecturing you, because what I say is not disingenuous.

I say what I mean, and I stand behind my words and opinions.

You have not convinced me that you don't drive a car, don't use the roads, don't wear clothes and don't use forms of entertainment. You have also not convinced me that you don't eat, or drink, and that you hadn't gone to school ever. You have not convinced me that you do not rent or purchased a dwelling place to live in, to protect you from the elements. You did all these things, which added to the climate change.

So I put to you this: is a person who uses energy as much as the average person in his community, not hypocritical, when he blames the builders to build his home, when he blames the car manufacturers to build his car, when he blames the clothes manufacturers to make his clothes, and the producers of his food, and the transportation companies to deliver this to him or to close to him where the goods are available without much work to him... is a person who uses energy for all these for his own benefit not hypocritical when he blames OTHERS who bring the food, clothing, who build the building he lives in and the roads to get these to him?

I highly resent NOT that you use society's benefits, but I resent that you misplace the blame and put on the persons who make it possible for you to enjoy these benefits. If you were NOT hypocritical then you would simply give up these benefits, and then you could claim moral superiority. But until such time, you simply can't.

I kept using "you", but it applies to all users of society's benefits, not just to you, personally.

You insinuate (but don't state) things that you want to accuse me with, but there is no accusation, only an insinuation of it. — god must be atheist

Oh you mean something like:

Some people just can't take the blame when it's due. It's a spineless, cowardly attitude to blame others for one's own wrongdoing. — god must be atheist

Yeah, I agree it’s rather impolite. Odd that the person who sets this tone becomes bewildered when it’s reversed.

Why do you do this? — god must be atheist

A good question to ask yourself, since you started this conversation.

Or perhaps you hold no responsibility for it — which, if I recall, is rather “cowardly.”

Each of you have a position to argue. I do not understand why you are both more interested in talking about how appalled you are that the other has taken the position they have.

If you must argue about who’s to blame for climate change, argue about that.

Sure— in the same way as we’re all to blame for the bombing of Iraq, and the many other war crimes and terrorism of the US (for those who live here, anyway). Does that mean I share equal blame with Rumsfeld? — Xtrix

This is a false conclusion. We are not to be blamed for the decisions we do not make. The war against innocent people and devastating their countries is NOT your or my decision. It was a decision made by the leaders elected by US citizens. Therefore I refuse to take blame for the US bombing other innocent countries to rabble. This parallel you drew was obviously illogical and aimed to win a part of the argument on false premises.

The two are separable, and separate. The using of society's benefits IS your decision. You could easily give up all of society's benefits to claim innoncence from the blame of pulluting the atmosphere, killing wildlife and causing climate change. But you don't decide that, you keep using society's benefits. So you are not above blame.

Each of you have a position to argue. I do not understand why you are both more interested in talking about how appalled you are that the other has taken the position they have.

If you must argue about who’s to blame for climate change, argue about that. — Srap Tasmaner

That's exactly the direction I am taking. Read please the early parts... I was defending what I perceived were personal attacks on me.

Try keeping your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. It works wonders. — Xtrix

What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you?

And please do observe that I was able to bring the discussion back to the topic you suggested: who is to blame for climate change. My position: every consumer of society. Xtrix's position: only the capitalist pigs. The debate still continues, and please be assured, that it will not let it get out of hand as long as I can help that.

No. You claimed that placing blame on “capitalists” was HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL, placing everyone in the company of the guilty— which is exactly what’s been promoted by those in power for decades. — Xtrix

I assure you I am not a capitalist, and I never read any capitalist power agitational propaganda.

I am simply using my head.

If the capitalist pigs, as you call them, forced you to make a decision to use society's benefits, against your will, then I would buy your defense in the argument, that these are capitalists' arguments and propaganda. But society's benefts are not dispensable. You don't use them because the capitalists force you to, you use them because without them you'd perish. Men and women have eaten and kept themselves warm since the advent of mankind. Why do you think it is the capitalist pig's insistence and propaganda that makes us want to eat, drink, live in a place, work for an honest living, transport ourselves, etc? These are parts of modern living, that are parts to make our lives happier, more comfortable, and safer, and most of all, possible. I don't eat because a capitalist pig is poking me to eat. I don't wear clothes because a capitalist pig is brainwashing me to do so. Do you?

So I put to you this: is a person who uses energy as much as the average person in his community, not hypocritical, when he blames the builders to build his home, when he blames the car manufacturers to build his car, when he blames the clothes manufacturers to make his clothes, and the producers of his food, and the transportation companies to deliver this to him or to close to him where the goods are available without much work to him... — god must be atheist

That’s like blaming people for buying cars when that’s the only choice they’re given. What they really want — and have got decades — is public transportation. The auto, rubber, and fossil fuel industries haven’t suppressed those options through their lobbying of congress. But it’s the CONSUMERS fault for buying a car to get to work? Find — let that be your focus if you’d like. In that case I’m as much to blame for the Iraq War as Dick Cheney. Whatever floats your boat.

The fact that people look at it this way is an effect of propaganda — nothing else.

If you were NOT hypocritical then you would simply give up these benefits, and then you could claim moral superiority. But until such time, you simply can't. — god must be atheist

Yes, I know this is what you think. It’s an old, tired, long refuted, silly slogan used over and over and over again for the last 30 years. You can find it on Twitter and YouTube and Facebook all the time as well. It’s paraded out any time one criticizes any industry— tobacco, sugar, fast food, fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, etc., for their crimes, disinformation campaigns, bribes, lobbying, monopolization, sleazy marketing, cover ups, suppression of information, and false advertising.

“Have you ever used fossil fuel products at any time in your life? Ha! Hypocrite! How dare you criticize those who produce the things you use!”

Fossil fuel companies are responsible for climate change. They’re knew about it in the 70s and deliberately suppressed the information and knowingly, consciously promoted falsehoods about climate science. This is now well documented — from internal memos and documents.

But if you prefer false equivalence, go right ahead. In that world, they’re just good companies giving consumers what they want. Wonderful story.

That’s like blaming people for buying cars when that’s the only choice they’re given. What they really want — and have got decades — is public transportation. The auto, rubber, and fossil fuel industries haven’t suppressed those options through their lobbying of congress. But it’s the CONSUMERS fault for buying a car to get to work? Find — let that be your focus if you’d like. — Xtrix

Public transportation is just as much available as ever. Cars are bought and used because people like the convenience of it. 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. This does not need to be sold to people by capitalist pigs' propaganda machinery, as you seem to claim has been happening.

I'm going to sleep now, I'll revisit this debate tomorrow again. Or maybe even look around the forum here, if I find some other discussions interesting to engage in. We'll continue tomorrow.

Thanks for the opportunity you provided to defend my views.

What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you? — god must be atheist

You should have flagged it.

But consider the post of yours that started this little love-fest:

The greedy capitalists are NOT inciting you to drive your car, wear clothes, heat your apartment, cool the inside of your fridge. YOU are doing it, and so am I; time to stop blaming THEM, the greedy capitalists. They are not using, per head, or per capita, more energy than you and I use, and blaming them for providing us what we want and demand is HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL. — god must be atheist

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. And okay maybe that’s a sentiment philosophers are prone to, but don’t be surprised if the people you express this view to take it personally.

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.

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.

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.

@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.