So we’re recklessly and lawlessly invading a country and kidnapping its president, and why? For their resources, and so Trump can appear to have a win by once again finding a solution to a problem that he created in his mind.

Must be nice to live in such a delusional world.

Crudely put here, these familiar time terms are really a unity. — Constance

In my understanding, it’s a unity in the sense that these traditional terms are really an abstraction from human activity. It’s all happening, and so the future is just as much the past and the present as the past is also the future. Which from a traditional Aristotelian sense of time is a gibberish statement. Nevertheless, there it is.

Not sure what this has to do with the metaphysics of presence. — Constance

To me, a consequence of privileging the present, and substance ontology generally, is a modern form of materialism that eventually reduces the goal of human life to consumption. Why? Because human beings become a substance, an object, like everything else— with perhaps the added trait of “reason” or language or thought. Which isn’t entirely untrue, of course. But any spiritual content — which once existed — is now gone, replaced with scientism, nihilism, capitalism. These now become the moral context in which society operates, from its mores to its laws.

Obviously these are sweeping statements and need much more examples and elaboration to fill them out. But that’s the connection I see— and the reason I find the metaphysics of presence an important and relevant philosophical concept.

Also, I am not advocating a return to Christian or Hellenistic religion. Just to be clear.

2, How can we know, that there is something which isn’t here? Or in other words, how can we say that there really is something which isn’t here and now, whilst the only things we can be certain about (say something about) are what is here and now? — Punshhh

So I would challenge this assumption. Why is the only thing we can be certain of in the “here and now”?

But in any case, for everything that is here and now, how many things are NOT here and now? Far more. From the workings of our bodies to all activity outside our scope of vision, what’s absent and unknown is simply much bigger than what is present and “known.” Yet this is what’s been privileged historically, and has even come to define human beings, from zoon echon logon to res cogitans.

The influence of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and even Kant is immeasurable when it comes to thinking about and defining human being (and thus what a good life, propose, and happiness mean). Yet to me it’s like defining a screwdriver as a paint can opener. Our capacity to think, speak, and be consciously aware (as in Descartes’ definition of thought) are secondary characteristics.

In other words, we should discard what's already been theorized. — L'éléphant

Largely, yes. But not because the theory is necessarily “wrong.”

You’re right to push back on such a big claim. But try to think of it less as reinventing the wheel and more of talking about the chariot. Doing so doesn’t negate the wheel’s invention, it’s simply talking about something else, albeit adjacent.

Should we come up with our own view from scratch? — L'éléphant

Not really. Remember, I’m building off of the work of Heidegger mainly, so this isn’t some armchair theorizing out of the blue. I’m naturally repulsed my that as well. Really the entire argument is based on historical and textual evidence. It’s an attempt to return to a presocratic understanding of being.

So, you don't think the autonomic nervous system doesn't happen in the present? It's a system that works without us being conscious of it. Please try to give a better example. — L'éléphant

No need, because I think your example is a good one.

The ANS. Yes, it works without conscious awareness. Its functions are mostly transparent or invisible to us, yet it happens. So we’re breathing all the time, but how often do we notice? Not until something goes wrong, or we’re meditating or something like that. Is that really “present”? No, I’d argue it’s concealed from our conscious mind. It’s absent until one’s attention is turned to it.

Now you can make an argument that everything from gravity to behavior that’s “second nature” all happen in the present, but that’s begging the question. It’s essentially saying “x is present because it happens in the present.” From one perspective, this makes perfect sense: everything happens in the present, then becomes past in memory while pushing into the unknown future. Like a moving point on a number line. But this perspective is exactly what’s being questioned.

Those are excellent questions. (It may take me a little time to respond today, so I wanted to at least acknowledge the response.)

Surely presence would include the idea of place as well as of time. Because for something to be present in the present, it would also be present in a place? — Punshhh

That’s true, although like in the case of time, the concept of space is also a little murky. The “here and now” is a well known phrase, and seemingly go together— no question. But exactly why that is privileged over what isn’t here (or now) is the theme of this thread.

Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers. — L'éléphant

Like Aristotle and Plato, yes. But if that presentation obscures something, we should think about it anew.

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? — L'éléphant

As opposed to what is absent, hidden, concealed. Which is far greater than what’s merely present before us.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. Human beings have been essential defined as thinking things — the res cogitans. But “thinking” is worth understanding a bit more. Descartes was very clear about what he meant, and it’s telling.

’s post is relevant here I think.

You’re right to mention the “now” — that’s how we generally see time, as a series of “now” points, dating back to Aristotle’s essay on time. But this conception itself is based on an understanding of being as substance, as ousia, and so privileges the present as well, the “now” point.

That’s interesting. I’ve never heard of Vervaeke, but I’ll take a look. But the idea — as you describe it —I like. See also Michael Albert’s participatory economics.



Thanks for that elaboration Josh. I failed to make that connection, but it’s an excellent point.

One Battle After Another

Lot of hype— not a bad film, I enjoyed it. Not on par with There Will Be Blood, but still a strong showing. Honestly, I have to admit that PT Anderson has been delivering much more than Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, or any of the other acclaimed directors (and certainly better than that overrated, pretentious engineer Christopher Nolan) lately. The only other person who’s delivered strong films is Scorsese, now in his 80s. Otherwise I can skip going to the theater.

I watched “Left Handed Girl” on Netflix— that pretty much blows the others away too. Goes to show that money and engineering doesn’t a movie make.

Like my dick! — bert1

I laughed at this more than I should have. Really out of the blue lol

I think it's fair to say that the Trump response does not express compassion and that the Biden response does. — praxis

Pretty clear to anyone without an agenda. Trump really has no compassion or empathy, but that’s been known for decades. Whether that extends to his followers— Yes, of course it does. What percentage? Who knows.

Anyway, this thread is Twitter-like nonsense anyway, so I’ll leave it there.

Trump saved the economy, which is the greatest economy in history now. It’s so obvious that he needed to rant about it for 20 minutes on national television.

But at least the speech was full of facts.

My reaction to this entire thread. Especially the comments about Marx. Good god.

Interesting watch. 16 minutes. Talks about science generally but climate science plays a big part.

Other examples are Seconds from 1966 (recommended), The Adjustment Bureau, and maybe The Substance fits too — Jamal

I haven’t seen any on those yet. I’ll give them a watch if I can find them on one of these damn streaming services. You may be on to something.

Thin Red Line" — ssu

Still a good movie. Used to like it a lot more as a kid, but still better than the crappy Saving Private Ryan, which was and is one of the most overrated, cringey movies ever — with the exception of parts of the D-day sequence.

“The Game,” with Michael Douglas. An underrated David Fincher movie. They currently have it free on YouTube.

If not, I guess the letter A

Scandalous?

S

Thanks! Once I read through the thread and saw your clues, that was a big help.

Clearheaded?

Oh wait nevermind.

A?

Freewheeler?

Seemed more than straightforward to me. I can’t believe this is “controversial” enough to fill a couple pages.

.

I'm wondering what you are yet to see a convincing argument for. — Janus

The title of the thread. I’d say false. Using “trans” preceding man and woman makes sense, but you cannot change your sex. But it has already been mentioned that “woman” is being used in the same way as gender. Fine. I wouldn’t define it that way myself, but with that meaning in mind then there’s really no issue.

It is the later. The OP essentially notes that 'woman' without adjectives or modifiers normatively means "Adult human female". "Trans" adjusts woman to mean, "A person who takes on the non-biological gendered behaviors that society expects an adult human female to exhibit". — Philosophim

Cool, then in that case I agree. If that’s truly what’s being argued for, then I have no objection.

Philosophy is employed here for thinking about a topic that confuses many people. — Philosophim

Who’s confused? I didn’t see much “confusion” about sex until recently. Ditto for many issues which are motivated not by science or philosophy, but by cultural and political agendas. So in the same way that there’s “confusion” about vaccines, I suppose you’re right. But the point stands.

If people adhering to different definitions of the terms 'woman' or 'man' believe there is but one correct definition, and that it is the one they hold, as though there could be some determinable fact of the matter, then they are arguing with closed minds and will inevitably talk past one another. — Janus

We can define things any way we like. There is not one “true” definition of anything, except maybe in mathematics. But in everyday life, will my response to your saying “It’s a beautiful day out today” ever be “well there’s not a true definition of ‘day,’ and your standard of beauty is subjective”? Not unless I’m insane, despite there being perhaps some merit to what I’ve said “philosophically.”

I’ll call anyone what they wish to be called. I’ll call you Janus the Great if you prefer— but before I actually believe it, I’d need to see some evidence or a convincing argument. In a trans case, I’ve yet to see such an argument.

I think this is a topic where philosophy (if we can call it that) is employed for an agenda and begins to look absurd.

Gender is one thing, sex is another. Sex is obvious and always has been. There are always exceptions, but they are very rare indeed, and one need not bend over backwards to change perfectly good language because of them.

What is being presupposed by the word “trans” anyway? From what to what? One sex to another, or one gender to another, presumably. I still hold that the latter is absolutely possible — the former isn’t.

What I think is sad is that so many bigoted people use what I’ve said above to justify the mistreatment of trans people, and it’s this use that the community and its allies are truly fighting against when they argue that sex is a “concept” or that “woman” is undefined. But it’s a fool’s errand and a political trap, and in my view has set back the movement by a decade at least.

Assuming you're talking about Trumps plan, it would be better than more war in my opinion.

Odds of it being accepted as it is by Russia is basically zero, but likely Trump has a "start high and settle lower" mentality. — boethius

I tend to agree.

He may be crazy enough to cut off all funding. But even then I can’t see Ukraine agreeing to this plan as it’s written.

Now I’m curious. I searched for his name and there’s several. Was his name just Marco? Seems like that guy is still a member.

Heideggar himself seems to be a pretty pivotal figure in modern philosophy. I'll definitely consider "introduction to metaphysics" as a companion to aristotle's work, because i'm currently determined to read as much about ancient philosophy as I can. — ProtagoranSocratist

Sounds good. It’s actually not a long read, and isn’t as difficult as Being and Time. The last section is especially clear (“the restriction of being”). I think pairing this with Aristotle can be helpful, but isn’t completely necessary in my view.

Still, one can’t go wrong reading more Aristotle.

And yeah I don't really care that Heideggar fell for Nazi ideology and promoted it a little bit as a professor, what matters to me more is the actual content that someone wrote, not their political identity. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don’t care either.

P.S., don’t listen to what anyone tells you about what Heidegger meant or who offers simple explanations. Most are so radically wrong it’s cringe-inducing. Just read it.

Putting aside hostility on this issue for a moment, I’m curious as to what everyone thinks of this plan, and what they put the odds of it being accepted?

I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest.

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated. — Jamal

Oh no kidding? Cool.

And yes, I think we should probably open up the new site, to allow anyone to sign up, though with admin approval to activate accounts. — Jamal

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

But seriously - Sounds like a decent amount of work. Look forward to seeing how it turns out. :up:

Do you disagree with my characterization of that class? Or are we in agreement there? — Moliere

So I clearly had to think on that a bit. Namely, for the last 4 years. Now I’m ready to respond.

Just kidding. I was re-reading this (still interesting) thread and realized it left off rather abruptly. Not sure why.

Yes, I do agree. Looking back, I’m not sure where the disagreement really arose from. I still remain firm: remove the capitalists, you remove capitalism. It’s true that private property, profit, and markets still remain — but they all predated capitalism in the sense I mean anyway, and are upstream from it.

Btw, this video is what led me to remember this thread:

Say what you will about Mamdani. but he must a world class ass kisser. — Wayfarer

Why? Nearly everyone Trump talks to face to face he changes his tune about, even after long online tirades.

My guess here is that you’re one of those who think Mamdani is too “far left” and a gift to the Republicans and can’t possibly accomplish any of his proposals, etc., and that’s skewing your perception.

Otherwise, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary. I’m sure he was respectful, and in return so was Trump.

I recommend “Introduction to Metaphysics,” by Heidegger. Don’t let his reputation dissuade you; it’s worth the read.