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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The latest banning, given the rules of this forum, shouldn’t be controversial.

Seems to me it’s fairly easy to get back on the site anyway, under a different name. That’s been pointed out several times. So if the person banned really wants to get back in, it’s realistic to assume they will.

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.

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.

Fortunately the state has "libertarians" ( :wink: ) to aid the transfer of money to Wall Street.

Covid restrictions = tyranny of the state.

If only we'd wake up and remember that the state is there to enrich the already wealthy; to uphold patent laws; to funnel public funds into research and development that is then given over to private hands; to keep taxes lower for the ultra wealthy than for anyone else; to bailout the financial sector whenever necessary; and to subsidize environment-killing fossil fuels.

That's not COVID you're dying of -- that's freedom.

or every single thing he did that night was heroic — Miller

:rofl:

Trolls come out of the woodwork for this stuff, don’t they?

You obviously don't know what Libertarianism means. — Harry Hindu

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. Most are just corporatists. All are capitalists through and through.

But if you want to go on believing the standard lines about “freedom,” you’re welcome.

Why you still vote for the same people that have been in power for 50 years and expect things to be different? — Harry Hindu

You mean capitalists? You’re right— libertarians are a far more extreme version of capitalism.

Not much to say. Can't imagine the outcome would have been the same with a young black male carrying a weapon, either on the streets or in court.

That aside, this little boy shouldn't have been there in the first place, and should have left the situation up to law enforcement. But like the capitol insurrectionists, here's another example of a person whipped into a frenzy by conservative media and the very stable genius.

You're very welcome -- that was fun. Your bishop to d3 on the 23rd move was excellent, really took me by surprise. Good game.

I think it's useful to bring the conversation to our modern understanding of being.

When we talk about the "real world," or "reality," or the world in general, or the universe, we have a certain conception in mind. What's going on in people's heads comes mostly from two sources, at least in the West: Christianity and science, and to be honest it seems as if the Christians use the story of science a lot themselves (excluding creationists, of course).

I'd like to quote from an post a while back which is relevant here.

Most of today's scientists will claim to assume "naturalism" in their endeavors. Someone famous once said that "I believe in God, I just spell it n-a-t-u-r-e." I've heard this a lot from the likes of Sagan, Dennett, Dawkins, Gould, and many others -- especially when contrasting their views with religious views or in reaction to claims that science is "just another religion."

It's worth remembering that science was simply "natural philosophy" in Descartes' day, Newton's day and Kant's day. This framework and its interpretation of the empirical world dominates every other understanding, in today's world, including the Christian account (or any other religious perspective, really). Therefore it's important to ask: what was (and is) this philosophy of nature? What is the basis of its interpretation of all that we can know through our senses and our reason?

A clue is given from the word itself: "natural." And so "nature." This word comes from the Latin natura and was a translation of the Greek phusis.

It turns out that φῠ́σῐς (phusis) is the basis for "physical." So the idea of the physical world and the natural world are ultimately based on Greek and Latin concepts, respectively.

So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought.

From Phusis: The Basis of Modern Science?

So we can see some connection here with the question of being. If "phusis" is the Greek term for being, and which is later the basis for both physics and nature, which comes to dominate our modern understanding -- is this not ultimately one part of the "metaphysics of presence" described in the OP?

Thus the "metaphysics of presence" is our philosophical ancestry, with several major variations: phusis, eidos, ousia, substance, God, nature, matter, energy.

We may ask: so what? So we see the world in terms of nature, or matter, or energy, or in the language of science. Science is the best we currently have, so what's wrong with that?

I think we simply have to look around and see how things are turning out to really understand where this tradition has come to. In Heidegger it's come to the "dead end." To Nietzsche, it's come to nihilism. I think both are correct. I would add: capitalism, as an offshoot of this way of thinking about nature and human beings (namely, materialism), is the most destructive force in the world today. It's not government, it's not socialism or communism, it's not what's traditionally thought of as religion (although capitalism is a kind of religion) -- it's the creation of a system of social organization that puts a small number of owners and shareholders on top and everywhere else puts as the servants and wage slaves of these owners.

Perhaps another way to say it: at the core of the issue today is, ultimately, a degeneration of a long philosophical tradition into a world where the central goal is to accumulate wealth and resources. 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. Yet we go on as the world crumbles around us.

Maybe only a god can save us in the end after all.

The 'now' is simply used for marking before and after, and in counting time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Used for counting time, exactly. I don't see the problem.



That's interesting, thanks.

Case in point.

That's it; we cannot pin down a now. I tend to think it's important to be aware of what we are doing in the kind of Buddhist sense of "mindfulness". That's not a presence which can be pinned down, or elaborated into a theory; not a 'thin' present-at-hand kind of presence, but it seems to be the foundation of any examined life,and I can't see phenomenology as important except in this regard. — Janus

I'm prone to want to merge a lot of what I've learned in meditation with Heidegger's ideas, yes. I, like you, see the meditative practices of the east to be phenomenology. Their concepts about "time" don't mirror Western conceptions -- the focus tends to be more on "impermanence," change, flow, and desire. Heidegger doesn't talk that much about desire, however. He does bring in the term "care," which I'd like to say is similar to "willing," but I don't find much textual support for this move.

Maybe it's off-topic and more in line with Heidegger's idea of authenticity. Do you see that idea as being related to his treatment of being? — Janus

Yes, in the sense that there is no "ground" of being, and that the acceptance of the anxiety that arises from this groundlessness is liberating. You don't "flee" it and conform to the rules and norms of society in an unthinking way, you face up to it (to death, to contingency, to the un-grounded nature of the world) and take ownership of your life. I think this is what is meant by authenticity.

Again, this isn't very clear from his writings. But I haven't read enough division II to be able to cite much supporting textual evidence.

But I wasn't proposing any metaphysic, I was trying to speak phenomenologically, which is to try to articulate lived experience. When we are "busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc)" is it not always now that we are doing that? — Janus

I know what you're saying, and I wouldn't say "no," I would say it doesn't come up very often. When it does, I can't see a way around what you're claiming. I think there's plenty of truth in it. There is this activity, there is this being, but it's hard to pin down a "now." That's why I was thinking you were arguing for eternalism: that a past and future are real, but occur in the present.

You can do a heavyweight, substantive reply with one line, or offer tons of fluff. — frank

And Frank decides to go with the third option: a one line reply of fluff.

I am taking liberties in the sense that I don't claim what I am saying is what Heidegger would say. I don't say the past or future are illusions, but that they exist, as past and future, only now. This does relate to Husserl's notions of retention and protention. Do you think Heidegger would say that dasein, the 'being-there', is now? — Janus

I think this is a matter of presentism and eternalism, with you seemingly arguing in favor of the latter.

I think Heidegger would say we don't often think about time in this respect -- we're too busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc).

Time doesnt exist because you have to know time is consequence of pyhsical nature, so you notice time because cycle occur, people know it hapened one day because sun make one cycle, and if you go as deep as you can, you know smth happened because you saw cycle, change happens out of this, and we say this happening: time. — Nothing

Then it seems what you're saying is that time is a measurement of change (e.g., the sun rising and setting). In which case we're equating time with what clocks measure (the sun being one kind of clock).

If time is objectified it appears as a flow or movement from past through present to future. But this is an abstraction; for lived time there is only now, not a 'dimensionless-point' now but an infinitely expansive now in which, and only in which, the future and the past exist as such. — Janus

I think you're taking liberties, because Heidegger is never so clear, but I also think that you almost have to be correct. When meditation is taught in eastern traditions, there is an emphasis on the "now" as well -- and past and future are seen as an illusion of some kind. The only "reality" is the one unfolding in the present.

Seems true. On the other hand, is this not simply another interpretation from a present-at-hand mode of being? While the now might not be quantified, we're stilling conceptualizing it and speaking of it. If anything, I see us as only being able to piece it together second-hand, in a way -- like automaticity or even deeper aspects of our being that are unconscious, and in fact largely beyond our ability to be it to individual awareness (like the internal workings of our liver and circulation).

Thnks for answer,
try time think one time you consider cycles and another time you say there is no cycles. If it is only now, tomorow never comes, past doesnt exist, or you show me, where ? Please try with cyles. I am looking into: time exist because cycle exist — Nothing

It's difficult for me to follow you. When you say "Please show me, where? Please try with cycles," I'm at a loss, for example.

So even though this wasn't directed to me, I'd ask: What is your question, exactly? What do you mean by "cycles"?

I think what it tells us about their being is that they occur in a certain mode of our being -- call it an abstract or linguistic mode, of which I would include mathematics and music. Quantities and geometric shapes are human phenomena. This is a Kantian move, really, but with the "subject" and "time" as interpreted differently.
— Xtrix

That’s helpful for explaining what you’ve been trying to get at. There’s more to do, but I could definitely see preferring to start here. — Srap Tasmaner

Was it the reference to Kant that helped? I'd like to know for future exchanges I might have with others.

asking how long it takes for a number to be a number is meaningless
— Xtrix

Yes, well, that’s the point of saying that mathematics is ‘timeless’ — Srap Tasmaner

When did I say mathematics is timeless? That's what I'm arguing against.

Numbers -- and words -- are products of the human mind, of the human being.
— Xtrix

And? What does their being the products of Dasein tell us about their being? — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, I don't like the word "product" either really.

I think what it tells us about their being is that they occur in a certain mode of our being -- call it an abstract or linguistic mode, of which I would include mathematics and music. Quantities and geometric shapes are human phenomena. This is a Kantian move, really, but with the "subject" and "time" as interpreted differently.

By hand, it might take you a minute or two to work out that 357 x 68 = 24,276. A calculator or computer will do it faster, but still take a measurable amount of time. But how long does it take 357 x 68 to be 24,276? — Srap Tasmaner

This assumes "time" in the sense of physics, as sequence of seconds. That's not what I'm referring to.

When we see something as "present" before us, as "here," this is a mode we're in as a human being. Heidegger calls this the present-at-hand. Something being "present" in this case does also indicate time -- the time of the "present" -- but how we conceptualize this present can vary. The traditional way of thinking about it is as a measurement, a "second," a moment, a "now-point." Time itself gets objectified, quantified. Time itself gets interpreted as something "present-at-hand," in other words.

This is the point.

So how else can we interpret time? First we should use a different word when talking about something other than the traditional/ordinary view of time: temporality. Temporality refers to various "ecstasies" of human activity -- for example, projection and anticipation. Both projection and anticipation is where the concept "future" will arise from, and where we will eventually quantify as a "not-yet-now," an approaching now-point.

So you see that in this respect, asking how long it takes for a number to be a number is meaningless. Numbers -- and words -- are products of the human mind, of the human being.

If we move to the secondary sense of "time", as what is measured, we find the conception of a continuity without any nows. The nows are seen as artificial. Therefore, when Heidegger says “The succession of nows is interpreted as something somehow objectively present..." in your quoted passage, this is a misunderstanding of Aristotle. It conflates the distinction between the primary sense of "time", and the secondary sense of "time", which Aristotle tried to establish. — Metaphysician Undercover

Artistotle is interpreting time as something present-at-hand, according to Heidegger. Whatever secondary sense you're referring to, it's not at all clear. "Continuity without any nows" is what, exactly? Perhaps citing Aristotle to support whatever claim you're making would be helpful.

Corporations should have their powers checked as much as the governments. Monopolies need to be broken up and competition promoted. — Harry Hindu

Exactly the alternative I mentioned. "Free markets" and "competition" is the answer. Which has been a complete failure on every level except one -- namely, the level of plutocrats. Libertarianism is just another cover for plutocracy. Capitalism through and through.

A nice story, though.

Philosophy can be summed up completely in the following:

What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? No matter.

This is from a story told by Bertrand Russell.

Figured this was a good place to put it— I found it amusing.

So to possibly close out this thread, I think it’s safe to say that not only was COP26 a complete failure, but did more harm.

Worth taking another look at the poll — most were correct, in the end.

If you indeed don’t know, then it’s responsible to be honest about it yes.

To understand the libertarian mind, remember the mantra: the government is the problem.

Don’t bother asking what the alternative is.

In a way, it does. Without oxygen, there aren’t human beings. Without human beings, there is no mathematics. In a sense there is no “time” either, if by time we mean in the traditional sense.

Mathematics is a human activity. Humans do indeed exist “in” time (or, better, “as” time).
— Xtrix
So the second sentence supposes an identity that is not there? — Heiko

No, it supposes human beings. Human beings are certainly "there." As are mathematical objects.

Mathematics do not know time. — Heiko

Mathematics is a human activity. Humans do indeed exist “in” time (or, better, “as” time). When we think in symbols, we’re thinking in a certain moment in time.

Mathematics does indeed presuppose time.