Yeah because "Kant wasn't good at philosophy" is a greeeaaat argument. lol you're like the dumbest poster here.

That's why Kant was not very good at this philosophy thing. — Garrett Travers

The problem with children like you is that you pretend to know things.God, no wonder Rand devotees have such a bad name. Yuck.

Gotta be pretty careful about “what Kant is getting at”. — Mww

Yeah you're right.

We conceive of the world.....what way? Conceive of the world in a material way?

Care to elaborate on what you’re asking about conceiving the world and what Kant was getting at? — Mww

Yeah I mean that materialism, or I guess material, is just a concept is it not? It's just a word. It's a way of interpreting the world. So if matter is representation, or a way of representing the world, then isn't it just another belief? Just another interpretation? If matter is all that exists, then what about the person or thing that says/thinks it's all that exists? Is this belief in matter also material?
I guess I mean, isn't it another interpretation??

a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

to be of service or advantage : AVAIL
2: to derive benefit : GAIN
3: to make a profi

Understand now how language works? Or, is it too idiosyncratic to apprehend? — Garrett Travers

Uh, most of those definitions pertain to money. So yeah, I think choosing one of them and claiming it's the REAL definition and then expecting everyone to know what you're talking about is just stupid.

But you're clearly a child, so I'll leave you to it.

Which you decided to injected yourself into, invoking your own preferred definition of "profit = gain of any kind." Disingenuous at best. But mostly just confused. — Xtrix

:fire: :100:

I tend to agree with Xtrix here. You seem to have your own idiosyncratic way of defining these terms. I mean, profits are what motivate living things? Not food and water and sex and shelter? Seems strange that an ant gives a damn about money. But obviously you're meaning profit in some other way. But why not just say that?
Maybe I'm missing something!

The US has far more guns than nearly any other country, per capita. The gun manufacturing industry, with their propaganda and lobbying, is behind it. Which only means, as usual, the valuing of profits over people is at the core of this rot. — Xtrix

:100: I agree. There are endless examples. Even after Sandyhook, the gun manufacturers still lobbied strongly against regulations that over 90% of Americans were in favor of. It comes down to valuing money and livelihood over human life. Really sad.

I think it's because the U.S. has too many guns. Way too many. The more guns available, the more you have issues. In other countries, less guns means less shootings. Seems kind of obvious.

If matter is all that exists, what about the fact that we conceive of the world this way? Isn't this what Kant is getting at?

Given the word philosophy is in the very title of this forum, it seems like a fairly straightforward question, "What is philosophy?"

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means. — Xtrix

I was just asking this on another thread! I'll have to read through the responses....

As a newbie, here's my opinions on the stuff offered so far.....

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. — Garrett Travers

I like this and it is what I have in mind most of the time, and my friends.

you usually have to be dead to be a great philosopher. — _db

I get this, and often feel this way too. But there have to be philosophers around now too, don't you think?

A philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and seeks wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Does anyone know what the greeks meant by wisdom? What are they loving?

I think philosophy, and therefore philosophers, is simply the asking of certain questions. — Xtrix

Woa. This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum?

thanks.

I have an idea! Give like 0.01% of it to me! You'll be a hero to a ton of people! :blush:

Thanks. I'll check it out.

I've made some changes lately and its been going pretty well. Still don't wake up every day very enthused or fulfilled, but I'm getting there. I'd like to wake up enthused and end the day exhausted in a good way. I would like to take more risks and be more active and work even harder, but I have no direction. I guess I'm one of those people who are just followers and not leaders, and require the guidance of others. Which makes me hate myself. I should have just gone into the military or something like that.

I still like biden more than trump. Is that crazy? :rofl:

This is why 'soft left' pop economists like Piketty, Kelton, or Mazzucato are so de jour right now. — StreetlightX

Shit I just got a book by Piketty from the library. Haven't started it yet but it was recommended by a few people. Why do you say he is a pop economist? Is it not even worth reading?

I think its harder to think of something coming from nothing than a infinite past because time could be a big circle. at least I can visualize It.

Really interesting stuff. I'm only a three pages in but it's very dense and I've already had to look up a bunch of stuff. I never gave it much thought when I used words like body and matter. I guess it's one of those things you take for granted. I guess I assumed it's whatever is made of atoms. But I can see how gravity sort of disrupted other ideas about it. I just thought we had a different definition now. but after looking it up on wikipedia, it's true that matter has several definitions. I thought chomsky was a linguistic, not a philosopher.....he seems to be making a big argument and I'm surprised this isn't debated more. Good idea for the thread!

I say A. If some ayes are bees, and seas are bees, then some ayes are sees. Unless not all bees are sees, which isn't given.

Plato and Aristotle both probably can be blamed or credited with almost everything that's happened since they were alive. IMO

thanks!

What happens to all the profit? Where does this money go? This should be the question for anyone working for a major corporation. — Xtrix

It's a really good question. My wife works for a big corporation, and they made billions last quarter. Meanwhile her and other workers constantly get nickeled and dimed, with just slight increases in their compensation. They're always told the same thing "we don't have the money" or "it would not be cost effective" and things like that.....but she doesn't really ask that question much. i think a lot of people are just afraid to be fired and don't want to rock the boat. They aren't given all the information and so it's just assumed that the higher ups "know what they're doing"
If most of the money is going to stock buybacks and dividends, my question is why do they do that? who decides, the CEO? You mentioned that it hasn't always been that way....how and why was it different?

Thanks!

Also, John McMannis, what do you think of being a supporter of a person who ruins lives? — Xtrix

I wouldn't say I'm a big supporter or anything like I said I just didn't like Trump. But I think I see what you're getting at.

It is absolutely a crappy position. But it is one engineered by the parties themselves. I'm not offering easy solutions. I don't think there are. People are going to get hurt. People are getting hurt. But I do think that what needs to not be done is to continue letting these parties put people in crappy positions. — StreetlightX

Well I agree with that, yeah. I admit I do still vote though, and I voted Biden. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of his or anything, it was more of that I thought trump was even worse. Maybe that was foolish in the end but I don't know how to go about proving it either way haha.

It's an absolutely trivial point that a 10 year old can understand. Provided they haven't spent years reading Zizek and other intellectual frauds, living in an idealist fantasy world. — Xtrix

Well I'm probably at a 10 year old level with this stuff anyway. I don't know who Zizek is but I just googled him. Why do you say he's a fraud?

Not just voting. I think both parties ought to be actively opposed and called out at every point. I'm not against voting. Vote how you like. But be aware of what it is you're voting for, and the effects it will have. I'm about dispelling illusions that people like to tell themselves. — StreetlightX

But isn't voting supporting a corrupt system by participating in it? I'm a little confused there. Seems like it's a crappy position to be in either way.

I guess those who hold jobs support capitalism, as well. — Xtrix

Your point here is that voting does not necessarily mean you support the two party political system in the US, right? I think this is a good point and that maybe Street agrees in some way?

I can't get him to say anything bad about the Trump (used to be Republican) Party. So far it's been all "Democrats bad. Democrats help Republicans." — James Riley

From what I understand, I think he is saying that both are bad.

The different being that he feels both parties are two sides of the same coin, and I think that's silly and based on a very, very shallow understanding of reality -- which is why I mentioned courts, which is one significant example of how one party's rise to power has very damaging effects to progress indeed -- for decades. — Xtrix

It depends on what your values are though, like you said. maybe you two don't see eye to eye on goals?

It seems to me that the real difference is just whether we should vote at all, right? Street says no because both parties are corrupt and that is supporting the system, and Xrix says we should vote for the party that will be less in the way of our goals. Am I right about this or way off?

He doesn't like me because I've outed him and exposed his cover. — James Riley

Ok.

okay.

Seems like none of you guys really like each other much, so I don't want to get in the middle.

Yeah, pretty basic stuff. Now try explaining this to your buddy. — Xtrix

What? What buddy?

I don't get it. If both parties are awful, as all of you say you agree with, then why bother voting at all? How do you decide if one is worse than the other? Doesn't it depend more on the candidate than the R or D near their name? I don't think people should just vote one or the other no matter what, which is why I like being independent, I can look at each candidate myself and see what he or she has to say.

Right -- we should all prevent the worst from happening, at minimum. It takes almost no time. Then we should get back to the real work. I understand the pessimism, but that shouldn't be a preventative for fighting. Not fighting guarantees the worst. — Xtrix

I voted for Biden in 2020, and yeah it was more because I really disliked what Trump was saying and quite frankly a lot of his supporters. But I'm an independent. Biden seems like a nice guy and everything and was talking about healing the country and stuff, but I never really bought it. I just didn't like trump haha.

But the reality is we live in a two-party system that won’t change in our lifetime. Unfortunately we have to vote against one or the other. Republicans want to drill more and deny climate change is real— that’s worth voting against. Very simple stuff, and says absolutely nothing about being in favor of the Democratic Party. — Xtrix

Makes sense I think.

That's fair! It's both confusing and not, in that if you do a little digging, it's not too hard to figure out where things stand with everyone. But alot of mainstream sources are not very good, and keep the important issues out of the limelight, which makes that "digging" a far tougher exercise than it ought to be. — StreetlightX

I find it hard because I don't know who exactly to trust. Once I get down the rabbit hole I bounce from one opinion to the next, and both are convincing, and both claim to be fighting for the workers and the 'little people" and stuff. But I guess "they" want everyone confused.It's very frustrating when alll you hear is how journalists are objective and seeking truth.

It is alot harder. And it's been made so it is that way. But it's also alot more effective! Check out what is happening with the John Deere strikers atm - their industrial action secured almost double the way raises they were being offered, and they're still striking for more. Or else look at the successes of the Chicago teacher's strike. Hard work in, good results out. — StreetlightX

Obviously not everyone is in the position to take industrial action. And the very fact that industrial action is mass action speaks to how hard it is for any one person, alone, to get things done. Alot of the work involves preparation and getting your principles in order so that when occasions arise, you do make the right choices. That seemingly 'wild' ideas like striking dont't seem so wild, if it ever comes to that. And cultivating solidarity and class consciousness with others like yourself in your community. You won't change the world by yourself. And that's OK. To find joy in a world geared towards making you miserable is a radical act. Joy and self-care is radical. Moreso if its shared. Also, it took literal centuries to end Feudalism. We will win because our timescales are geographic! — StreetlightX

That's encouraging advice. I guess I shouldn't worry so much about the news and focus more on my job and things I can actually do something about. makes sense.

Become an activist. Educate yourself and others, organize with others. Identify programs you want and push for them. This is done all the time, if you look around. It was especially prevalent in the 60s, and much of the progress we see today comes from exactly those movements. — Xtrix

Geez. I like what you're saying but what if activism is just a phony thing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Not saying I believe that but what if?

The point is to continuously create and push for programs you want, on the national, state, and local level. Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored. — Xtrix

Is this in reference to the other response I got from street light? Because he is saying the opposite almost. What if we just take away the word activism and just say fighting and organizing and stuff, like you're saying. I think you both agree with that but cal it different things.

As for voting: there are two political parties in the United States. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned, and I agree with, an activist should take two minutes to see which candidate is worse, and vote against that candidate -- then get back to the important work of educating and organizing. Voting is important, but hardly any more important than those two minutes. You should do it, then move on. Not voting, or voting third party in a swing state, is helping the worse candidate succeed -- period. That's just arithmetic. Idealists and purists simply cannot understand this, so there's no use arguing over it. But the choice is a simple one. It's not an endorsement of the Democratic party, or Joe Biden. It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. Those who want to claim the Republicans and Democrats are the same are, likewise, deluding themselves. — Xtrix

This does make sense to me. In other words just vote against Trump or people like him but don't make a big deal about it and don't pretend that joe biden is so great? That's kind of where I am at in how I feel about them but yet pretty pessimistic about anything big changing in my life.

Most importantly is to talk with other people. It's next to impossible to do it all yourself, especially when there are plenty of other responsibilities one has in life. This idea of individualism is foisted upon us to keep us isolated. This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. They coordinate with their class all the time to maintain their power, and they always look after each other. The middle and working classes have been conditioned to fear and hate their own members, but they can do the same. Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. There's a real world out there, with real people, and it's worth joining. — Xtrix

I'll definitely take this advice. Any suggestions on how best to get involved locally or how to break into the conversation with people about this stuff? It's not so easy for me.

If you ever come across someone pretending to be non-partisan in regards to a two-party fight, and yet they claim one of the parties is a shill for the other, that person is a shill for the party they did not attack. — James Riley

Do you mean like what Streetlightx said or something else? Are you saying he is a shill for the republican party because he attacked the democrats? this is a confusing issue for me. I feel like Democrats align more with my values and say things I agree with more. Bernie sanders is a good guy I think and what he was saying in 2016 and 2020. Elizebeth warren too. Mayor Pete and Andrew Yang seemed like they had interesting ideas too although I don't follow them closely. Most of what Trump was talking about seemed lacking in substance. But maybe it's better to let the republicans take over so that people fight back against it? I don't really know.

What to do? Break that cycle, and more importantly, break it from the left (the democrats are not a left party - they are a conservative party, just FYI). If that means not voting, so be it. People like Xtrix will try to hold you hostage and gaslight you: if you don't vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power. But it's farce. If you vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power anyway, because the function of the democratic party is defuse left energy (which the republican party can't do), and then, one that's done, actively pave the way for republican victories after that. That's their objective role in American political life. They're the rear-guard of republican political power. — StreetlightX

thanks for the thoughtful response. So if what you say is true, then it seems pointless to vote for either party. Seems like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. I'm basically an independent voter when I do vote, which has only been a few years and my first time was for Obama in 2012 but I didn't feel anything changed. Then we got Trump who I really don't like much although I don't know about his policies. It seemed things became more polarized after obama so it does seem like you're right. But I do think that it's better in other ways to have biden in office even though not much seems to be happening. Maybe that just makes it worse, I don't know. It's really confusing to me. I think this is why a lot of people don't vote haha

Far more interesting that anything the Democrats have been doing is workers strikes all over the US. Capitalism is a wage relation, and it is over wages and workplace rights that anything will be won. — StreetlightX

Why? This seems a lot harder than voting and stuff, to me anyway. If I could vote for a different CEO I would, but that's not how it works. If I ask for more money, they can just can my ass. I live in a right to work state, so they're not big fans of workplace rights and unions. I guess I could just quit if I really hated it, but it's hard to get other work.

Discuss your wages with your fellow workers. Join your union. Build networks of worker solidarity. Never hate on the poor or the uneducated, not matter how silly their antics can be. Power is always the enemy. Know that bosses are not your friends. Keep yourself informed. Refuse, at all costs, the fake distinction between liberal and conservative. Educate yourself, and, just casually, those around you when the opportunity arises. — StreetlightX

Thanks, I think this is good advice and I'm going to make it a goal to read up on things more and talk to others about it. That seems to be the advice I'm getting from a lot of people. I never identify as conservative or liberal and don't even like talking politics much because I don't know that much about it. What's some good news sources in your view?

Also for the love of God never call yourself an activist. An activist is someone too non-committal and pussy to call themselves a socialist outright. Hitler's brownshirts were activists. 'Activism' is liberal code for: ineffective tinkerer of the status quo. — StreetlightX

Damn. I never thought of it that way. I have always admired Martin Luther king and people like that. A lot is made of greta Thuneberg these days too and I think she's a cool person. I always considered these examples of activism but maybe it does stay on the surface of things without knowing it, or maybe having the wrong goals. Or maybe they're not activists in the sense you mean but are still active? Is it more the label you don't like or do you think Greta and Jane Fonda and people like that are just full of it?

Maybe pick a couple of books - Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal! is probably one of the better antidotes to Blue MAGA people like Xtrix. Or even something like Red State Revolt, which shows how worker movements can and do flourish in so-called red states. Or even Chris Hedges, who is a nice popular writer on these topics: https://www.amazon.com/America-Farewell-Tour-Chris-Hedges/dp/1501152688/ — StreetlightX

Hey thanks, I have heard of Chris Hedges but not the others. I'll check them out for sure!

Thank you all for the feedback. I'll be able to write more in a little bit.

Yeah that's true. But I guess I mean it like in sports. It's true that they're all individuals, but they're also a team. To play as a team is different than playing just for yourself and your own glory, gotta pass the ball and stuff. I don't think that means it's communism though.

“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain. — James Riley

Good quote thanks. This seems like a big reason for a lot of the controversy. Maybe I'm missing something.

Philosophical investigations — Wittgenstein

I looked through that, but it's way too advanced for me I think. Thank you for the suggestion though, but I think it's lost on me. Hopefully in time I become less dumb haha

I pose the argument that everything humans do is for their personal gain and that 'love' doesn't exist. — obscurelaunting

I think love is just a word for something we feel. I definitely care about my friends and family, I would be sad to see them die, and I want them to be happy. If that's not love then yea maybe love doesn't exist but then we'd need another word for it like caring or something?

I only read a few pages back but I don't really follow you guys. Are you saying we should vote a third party or not bother voting at all and get more engaged in local stuff? You both seem not to like either party much so what would you recommend the average person do? I'm hoping to become more involved myself but not sure where to start. Maybe my time is best spent elsewhere because politics seems pretty messed up.