But we 'sophisticated' people in the 21st century are addicted to 'reason' and are conceited about any kind of knowledge that does not come from 'reason'. Reason is abstract, consciousness is concrete. Which is more truthful about the world? — EnPassant

Very good point.

Consciousness, awareness, attention, concentration -- all very similar in many ways. The latter two have perhaps more specific connotations as sustained or unwavering awareness.

Regardless, it's no wonder consciousness is where "modern philosophy" starts in Descartes. It's striking how often this is overlooked or misunderstood, but Descartes' cogito, ergo sum is not simply "thinking" as in the reasoning and abstracting you mentioned above, but rather "conscious awareness." He makes this clear in his Principles of Philosophy, which unfortunately almost never gets assigned to students but which I would argue (as would Descartes himself) is a much more important work than the Meditations or the Discourse.

The question becomes, in reaction to Descartes, what is "consciousness," what is the "I," and what is "being"? Heidegger essentially says that this should really be flipped: "I am, therefore I think." He'll claim that Descartes largely ignores ontology, taking up the Scholastic variation and moving on from there. I think this is very much true, and that we've thus almost completely ignored the question of being and have been stuck in a mind/body or subject/object divide for a long time now, wrapped up in our scientific pursuits while what's called "philosophy" gets relegated to simply an analysis of the results of science in college and university departments.

It's exactly the lived life, the average everyday life, that we ever begin to philosophize. Yet this either gets ignored, or else interpreted in the same light we interpret anything else in nature -- by de-worlding it. So your point of differentiating abstraction and consciousness is important indeed.

Particular instances of people acting in moral ways and holding moral opinions are part of reality or course, but the question “what is moral?” is separate from the question “what is real?”. That’s the is-ought or fact-value divide there. — Pfhorrest

Although it can be useful, the fact-value dichotomy was never very compelling to me. But this is beside the point: even morality as a concept is a being. Hence, morality and ethics is part of philosophy, because philosophy is ontology.

Or one could argue.

As regards the definition of philosophy, a quick and general answer would be that philosophy is about the fundamental topics that lie at the core of all other fields of inquiry, broad topics like reality, morality, knowledge, justice, reason, beauty, the mind and the will, social institutions of education and governance, and perhaps above all meaning, both in the abstract linguistic sense, and in the practical sense of what is important in life and why. — Pfhorrest

A very good interpretation, in my view. Philosophy as asking fundamental questions, which traverse all other fields. This is partly why I also like philosophy as ontology (in the Greek sense). You mentioned before that you believe this isn't quite right, because philosophy is also about morality -- but I'd say that morals, values, justice, "good" and "bad," actions, etc. -- are all "beings" as well. Maybe a better way to say it: they're all "things," after all. So taking "being" in a very broad sense, philosophy as ontology also includes morality.

The first line of demarcation is between philosophy and religion, which also claims to hold answers to all of those big questions. I would draw the demarcation between them along the line dividing faith and reason, with religions appealing to faith for their answers to these questions, and philosophies attempting to argue for them with reasons. — Pfhorrest

A very good place to start. On the other hand, even "formal" philosophy starts with axioms of some kind. Granted, it does not justify it's propositions by appeals to "faith" as often as some religions do. But the problem then becomes: what is "religion"? Is religion simply beliefs held on faith and not reason? In that case, I'd argue Buddhism really isn't a religion at all. There are no gods, no supernaturalism, no accepting anything on faith. Other religions, including Christianity, use the faculty of reason a great deal, as in Scholasticism. Those thinkers weren't idiots, of course.

The very first philosopher recognized in western history, Thales, is noted for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world, instead practicing a primitive precursor to what would eventually become science, appealing to observable phenomena as evidence for his attempted explanations. — Pfhorrest

This is the usual story, and probably correct in many ways -- although I have a hard time believing no other thought was occurring prior to Thales. Regardless, this is what is extant and so he earns his place. It's interesting that from his case alone we can shed light on what we're discussing here. He was certainly a believer in the gods, but also asked fundamental questions, and sought to answer them with reason and evidence. He's often said to be one of the "founders" of what would become (much later) "science," but he alone embodies all three aspects we've been discussing -- religion, philosophy, science.

Clarify both definitions so I/we can evaluate them. — 180 Proof

I'll try: philosophy is, essentially, ontology -- the science of being. It's the activity of interpreting being through theories and concepts.

So in Aristotle, "First philosophy" is (although often translated anachronistically as "metaphysics") ontology; "Second philosophy" is essentially natural philosophy, and so all the positive sciences in our time (many of which he founded).

I think that's a decent place to start. This raises a welter of questions, of course. But I'm being deliberately provocative.

By “therapeutically satisfying way of life” I meant to distinguish between philosophy as it is practiced in academia today, and, for example, that of the Hellenistic philosophers for whom philosophizing was a kind of medicine. — Statilius

I'm still not sure what you mean by a "kind of medicine."

See, here it's tricky in my view. On the one hand, of course philosophy isn't science or religion -- they differ in many ways. But on the other hand, they deal with very similar questions.
— Xtrix
Being interested in someone's work does not mean interfering with what they are doing. The philosopher and the scientist who operates on a certain theoretical level are interested in similar problems, as you say. But philosophy cannot claim to rival the scientist in establishing the facts. It can interpret what science is doing (philosophy of science), but it cannot correct or replace it. — David Mo

You're presupposing a difference, though. When does philosophy end and science begin? Or religion and spirituality, for that matter. I agree wholeheartedly there are examples where it does appear to be fairly clear-cut and obvious, but other times not so much. So, for example, we could ask whether Kant or Newton or Galileo were "doing" science or philosophy, but that question wouldn't really arise in their day. Was Aristarchus a scientist? I'd say absolutely. Was Thales or Anaximander? Democritus?

You see what I'm getting at. Like I said before, I'm not saying there is never a difference. In today's world there certainly appears to be in terms of university departments and the kind of papers being published, etc. But like many things, we don't have a real rule or solid "definition" for determining which is which -- although we may feel like there's one. Maybe we simply have to say "So much the worse for definitions," and leave it to intuition and specific situations.

On the other hand, the scientist would do well to have a philosophical background if he wants to get into the field. Usually theoretical scientists confuse the philosophies of the past with those of the present. They think they have refuted "philosophy" when they have dismantled some beliefs of Plato or Thomas Aquinas. Although there are often contacts between scientists and philosophers, the great popes on both sides are often surprisingly misinformed. A matter of egocentricity, I suppose. — David Mo

Very true. It's no big surprise that the real trailblazers in science are the individuals who engage with the thinkers of the past, rather than dismissing it all as useless (while inadvertently presupposing the philosophy of 80 years ago).

Many centuries of empty metaphysics have made me apprehensive about these kinds of "universal" tasks. When I hear the word "Being" it gives me chills. A conditioned reflex I suppose. — David Mo

Rightfully so. What did Nietzsche say about being -- that it's an "error" and a "vapor"?

Missing half the picture. Philosophy isn’t just about being and ontology, i.e. reality. It’s also about morality. — Pfhorrest

Is not morality a part of reality?

What do we think of this:

“Philosophy is the theoretical conceptual interpretation of being, of being’s structure and its possibilities.”

or

"Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology."

Agree? Disagree? Incoherent?

Judging from some recent polls in battleground states, looks like we're in for another four years of Trump -- largely owing to the DNC's putting up terrible candidates, and voters willing to sit out or protest-vote in response and thus helping Trump get another four years of systematically destroying environmental regulations (needed more than ever), accelerating climate change, appointing lifetime judges to the circuit court, giving department heads to his friends, massive tax cuts to the wealthy, etc. etc.

Let's hope the DNC "learns its lesson" this time. Let's also hope our grandkids have a planet to inhabit in 2060.

Of the many types of human inquiry, philosophy is inquiry by means of rigorous reasoning in the pursuit and formation of creditable beliefs. As such, it is not bound to any specific field, concern or interest. Many, if not every, cosmic dimension and question can be approached by way of philosophy: religion, science, literature, farming, cinema, education, politics, cooking, etc. Philosophy is one of many tools humans employ to render the world and their experience more intelligible. While, for some, philosophy is strictly a theoretical enterprise, for others it is a therapeutically satisfying way of life. — Statilius

Inquiry certainly plays a role, as does reasoning. Whether it's the pursuit of "creditable" beliefs (do you mean credible?), this too has a long history going back at least in some ways to Plato, but obviously the question then becomes "What is belief?" and "What is truth?"

So to tweak what you've said a little bit, does philosophy as the "pursuit of truth through rational inquiry" sound good? Or have I misunderstood you?

Also, regarding "therapeutically satisfying way of life," I'm not totally clear on that -- how does this differ from a rational or theoretical enterprise? Or does it?

Appreciate the responses.

See, here it's tricky in my view. On the one hand, of course philosophy isn't science or religion -- they differ in many ways. But on the other hand, they deal with very similar questions.
— Xtrix

True, but it is the ways that they approach those questions that differentiates them. — Pfhorrest

Sure, but here we get into the issue of a scientific "method" that differentiates it from the others -- especially religion and philosophy, which are often looked down on in science -- and to which science owes its success. Personally I'm not convinced by the arguments in favor of such an "inductive method," although others on this forum have emphasized predictability as an essential feature above the rest. That's all debatable.

Regardless, this isn't really about science, but since science was originally called "natural philosophy," and since religions throughout history (not simply Christianity) have asked the same basic questions philosophers ask and have come to conclusions that don't involve the "supernatural" at all (like some Buddhist and Daoist ideas), it's sometimes not so easy to see where religion ends and philosophy begins. After all, Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Anselm are considered philosophers. Galileo and Newton were pretty religious men yet are considered great scientists.

You see my point. Again, it's not that there aren't differences -- they are often quite clear, in fact -- but when pushed to answer it does get a bit tricky. I think our Western answers and attitudes are shaped in reaction to specifically Christian dogma, and so science and philosophy get separated from this dogma (which comes to represent "religion") and hence against things like heaven, hell, the supernatural, angels, a humanoid sky-Father, miracles, etc.

What do you mean by 'thinking'? — EnPassant

Excellent question. I wish I had a definitive answer.

Abstract 'rational' thinking? — EnPassant

I see that as one mode of thought, yes.

Isn't simply being conscious thinking? — EnPassant

Again, it depends on what we mean. Is thought equated to words and concepts and abstractions? If so, then I'm sure I "think" without these at times -- in imagery, for example.

But if "thinking" means anything we're consciously aware of, then we're very much agreeing with Descartes, and in which case it'd be hard to differentiate philosophy from "thinking" in this sense. or really anything at all -- since conscious awareness seems to be involved in nearly everything to we do. I don't feel this is quite right, but it's a powerful position.

If thought is energy 'flowing' through the mind then being is thinking. Thought is being. Being is thought. — EnPassant

I think you've actually touched on something that has been a dominant view in the West for a long time indeed, namely that being and thinking are either the same or that "being" is really subsumed by thought (in the sense of consciousness), which sounds to me a little like Kant's representations -- not that "being" in the sense of the objective world isn't there, but that the mind contributes to it. Here we're in the subject/object form of knowledge, with time and space being the forms of perception and hence everything knowable.

Whether being and conscious awareness ("thinking") are the same is an interesting question. Again I find Heidegger a very interesting resource on these issues. I don't want to make this about Heidegger -- I have another thread for that -- but needless to say your question is a good one.

An interesting list indeed.

Philosophy is about the human being. Although it sometimes seems to treat the universe, it always does so from the perspective or background of the human being. — David Mo

I very much agree with this especially -- and it's striking how often it's forgotten. I think this is largely because science is so successful and is thus seen as the ultimate court of appeals for truth. Since science deals with objects in nature, with matter in motion, it can very easily be forgotten that these sets "facts" are also interpretations, parts of explanatory theories, etc.

Obviously this isn't new -- Kant pointed this out as well, to name one major figure, but it's still worth bearing in mind.

Philosophy is rationality. Even when it defends the irrational, it must do so with arguments that can be shared. — David Mo

I think this is in fact what the view has been for over 2,000 years. That philosophy is the ratio or logos: that we're thinking entities, or the rational animal, or the primate with language, and so on -- philosophy being thus the human being's highest activity.

Philosophy is not religion — Pfhorrest

Philosophy is not science — Pfhorrest

See, here it's tricky in my view. On the one hand, of course philosophy isn't science or religion -- they differ in many ways. But on the other hand, they deal with very similar questions.

Let me throw in another question: how does philosophy differ from "thinking" generally? Or does it?

All interesting so far.

Worth repeating:

Let's say both men are equally terrible as people, man A and man B. One will destroy the planet (terrible man A), one will not (terrible man B) -- and we acknowledge this fact, say fact "X."

Given X, who do you want to see in charge? (Fully acknowledging it's still a bad choice indeed.)

If it's the latter (B), then the next question is: what if I sit out, or vote for someone besides the two terrible men?

If the answer turns out to be: it helps man A, what then? Do we change our mind and vote directly for man B? If not, and given we accept X, how can we live with this choice? Is it not saying that doing the "right thing" is a greater priority than human existence?

I think the problem with the people on this thread is that they don't accept X. But that's exactly what I want to discuss, because I think there's overwhelming evidence supporting it, which comes directly from science.
_______

That's logic. If the premises aren't accepted, my conclusion is wrong. So far as I know, however, there hasn't been a very cogent argument against the premises.

So if we care about what we profess to care about -- whether it's rape, or the DNC, or climate change, or any progressive policy, the logic is quite clear.

For those who don't care about these things, or believe the opposite, the logical thing is to vote for Trump.

I don't trust Biden as far as I can throw him. I know he really serves the money. Great that you want Trump gone. There may be a whole lot of people just like you. There are people like me, too, who none of you respect and evidently just don't need. — neonspectraltoast

It's not a matter of respect. It's not about shaming, or bullying, or blind obligation. It's also not about character, since the candidates themselves are empty suits.

It's about rationality and logic. Given a set of premises, or in this case a set of goals, it can easily be shown what the correct decision is.

I'm not voting, and I don't feel I matter enough to help determine who wins. Your idea of appealing to people like me is looking down on us and trying to shame us into voting. And for what? Biden? I can't relate to that clown. — neonspectraltoast

Nor can I. I can't stand him. I wanted Bernie and campaigned for Bernie. I was arguing on this very forum for months about Bernie.

So this itself should tell you you've misunderstood me. It's not about Biden.

Biden or Trump, you get the same society. — neonspectraltoast

That's just not true. It's a standard line used -- but it's false equivalence. The difference between a Biden administration and a Trump administration is very clear indeed. If you read further above, I've gone through multiple examples.

Compare them on healthcare. Compare them on climate change. Etc.
— Xtrix

I have. Matters of degrees. — Benkei

Yes, Biden believes climate change is real, Trump says it's a hoax. I'd say that's a few degrees of difference. And it's reflected in policies.

Obama did fuck all for the environment, Trump is worse but the endgame is the same. — Benkei

The endgame is the same? I'm not sure what this means.

Biden wants to have a committee, which is just another word for "doing nothing". What major overhaul has Trump affected for healthcare? Trump wants to build a wall? Who expulsed the most immigrants? Obama. — Benkei

Biden, even if he can't be pressured to do more (which is the crucial point), will likely only take baby steps forward. Compare that to Trump's policies, which take us twenty steps backwards. I don't see how that's the same.

As for Trump and healthcare -- again, Obamacare isn't great, but it's something. What has Trump done? Weakened it, offered nothing in its place, tried to repeal it, etc.

I'm not an apologist for Obama -- I'm saying we should acknowledge that there are indeed differences, and they matter. Obama did stop the Dakato Access pipeline construction, for example -- which Trump immediately permitted. That matter to the Native Americans protesting. May not seem like much, but it's relevant. The details matter.

I've only been arguing against the idea that progressives are obligated to give the Democrats their vote simply because Trump is a bad candidate. I see that as a form of blackmail. Nobody owes their vote to anyone. It has to be earned. — Baden

Ok, in that case I agree. I consider myself "progressive," and I don't feel I'm obligated or that I "owe" Biden anything. What I owe the country and the future of the planet is to remove the cancer from office. The next step -- and this is important -- is to push the Biden administration to the extreme. If he doesn't listen at all, then perhaps the next election vote in a (sensible) Republican out of spite. But the Republicans are now so dangerous that I can't see myself voting for them unless there's a major overhaul, particularly about science.

To a degree, I agree. If Trump really were about to, let's say, start a nuclear war then there would be an argument that just about anyone with a pulse would be a better option and in order to avert that disaster, they should vote for them. But I just don't see that level of difference. — Baden

I know -- so let's discuss it. Then it at least becomes a matter of facts and evidence rather than character and speculations (or allegations -- which I happen to believe).

I see a regular GOP vs Dem election with the GOP candidate being a horrible boor with zero morals peddling shitty policies, but not one likely to start a war and not one capable of single-handedly destroying the planet (or America) in any other way. — Baden

Ruling out nuclear war -- which I would argue he is indeed accelerating, with climate policy it's almost a truism. But leave even that aside and take the judiciary. That's crucial, and surely not short-term, as you know. McConnell has been vigilant about appointing judges because he knows this is the only way the GOP can maintain power given the shifting demographics, so that 1/4 of circuit judges are now Trump appointees. What will it look like in 2024? Trump has already gotten 2 SCOTUS picks and will almost certainly get two more in the next four years (unless RBG finds the fountain of youth). That's a 7-2 reactionary court, which will take decades to undo. This doesn't concern you?

Again, let Biden be investigated. We don't have to like him. Let him be thrown out of office for all I care. It's not about him as a character, even without the allegations. There are just greater factors at stake here.

It's not about Trump or Biden though, it's Republican and Democratic. I guess it takes a view from outside the USA to realise how marginal those differences are. — Benkei

Not really. They are fairly marginal. But given that we're the most powerful country on earth, those "marginal" differences still matter a great deal. Just compare Obama and Trump -- not just personalities, but their policies. It's just pure intellectual laziness to declare they're both the same because they both largely serve corporate interests. That's far too simplistic. Compare them on healthcare. Compare them on climate change. Etc.

And we who are opposed to Trump, recognizing that he is a sociopath and, more importantly, runs an administration that is destroying the prospects of future human life, have what kind of responsibility? None? "Indirect"? — Xtrix

None indeed. — Benkei

I don't really think you believe this.

Confronted with two choices that are not materially different — Benkei

But they are very much different. This is the point I'd like to hone in on, because if I saw no difference than yes there would be no point in voting at all.

because the system is rigged in such a way you'll never be offered a meaningful choice means you don't have actual agency. — Benkei

Elections are largely PR affairs, we're given two "choices" of buttons to push, and we're told that this is democracy. I agree that it isn't. But that doesn't negate our agency -- it just means we should see it for what it is, vote for the least damaging candidate, and continue with the real work of changing society.

It doesn't mean we throw up our hands and see it all as the same. There are differences between the two parties, and they matter. So we vote for the party or candidate that is more likely to come around to progressive ideas. As I said, that should take about 5 minutes to decide and then we continue our day-to-day activist work.

I think you think essentially only the election matters, it's meaningless, and the way to change it is to do -- nothing? I disagree with all of this, needless to say.

It's like: if I sit on the floor and hold my breath, maybe someone will notice and care, and do some unspecified good because of my display of toddlerhood. — frank

Eh, let's not make it a cartoon version. Their intentions are well-meaning, in my view, but they're simply making a mistake. They don't see the full implications of another Trump term, or don't see Biden as any different.

To reduce it to utter simplicity: let's say both men are equally terrible as people, man A and man B. One will destroy the planet (terrible man A), one will not (terrible man B) -- and we acknowledge this fact, say fact "X."

Given X, who do you want to see in charge? (Fully acknowledging it's still a bad choice indeed.)

If it's the latter (B), then the next question is: what if I sit out, or vote for someone besides the two terrible men?

If the answer turns out to be: it helps man A, what then? Do we change our mind and vote directly for man B? If not, given we accept X, how can we live with this choice? Is it not saying that doing the "right thing" is a greater priority -- is more important -- than human existence?

I think the problem with the people on this thread is that they don't accept X. But that's exactly what I want to discuss, because I think there's overwhelming evidence supporting it, which comes directly from science.

Thus you've inadvertently helped Trump win
— Xtrix

Yeah, very different thing. The language matters because it's about responsibility. The only people directly responsible for Trump being in office are those who vote for him. — Baden

Fine. And we who are opposed to Trump, recognizing that he is a sociopath and, more importantly, runs an administration that is destroying the prospects of future human life, have what kind of responsibility? None? "Indirect"?

So some people literally can't understand how an election works? wtf? — frank

The person with the most votes (in the right states thanks to the electoral college) wins. It's not difficult.

What's apparently difficult is understanding how throwing away a vote also has an effect -- one that runs counter to one's professed goals.

Let's cut off our noses to spite our faces by throwing our votes away, thus essentially repeating 2016 and helping re-elect Trump, who will continue taking us backwards, ruining the environment in a time scientists tell us we need action, appoint possibly two more Supreme Court justices (7-2 conservative majority) and many more circuit court judges for lifetime terms (making nearly 1/3 of all appellate judges Trump appointees), take us closer to nuclear holocaust by ramping up the nuclear arms race, etc. etc.

The reason isn't a bad one -- Biden is a terrible candidate. But what will be the consequences? Possible destruction of organized human life and at the very least a completely overhauled judicial branch, which will reverberate for generations to come. To top it off -- there will still be a rapist in office.

Logic lesson: I have an apple. I've refused to give my apple to Joe or Don. Therefore, I did not give my apple to Joe or Don. The fact that I would have given my apple to Joe if Joe hadn't (probably) raped Tara still does not mean I gave my apple to Don. — Baden

True. But if I, your neighbor, votes for Trump and you've abstained, then Trump wins.

No one is saying you're literally casting a vote for Trump, Baden. If this is what you're hung up on, then I gladly retract it: you are NOT in fact casting a vote for Trump. You are, however, assisting Trump in getting elected. Perhaps I should have said you're "essentially casting a vote for Trump," but I figured this didn't need to be said and that you'd assume I didn't actually believe you were literally writing in Trump's name or pushing a button for him.

Put it this way: because you have not given your apple to either candidate, Trump now has one apple and Biden has 0. Trump wins with more apples. Thus you've inadvertently helped Trump win -- which he knows quite well, which is why he encourages Bernie to run as an independent and for those upset about how Bernie was treated to not vote. We learned from 2016 what the consequences are from this. (And this is not to blame only third party voters.)

I'm sure you don't dispute this. From my reading, it seems you just don't see much of a difference between the two, e.g. what you said about climate policy. In that case I just disagree and then the discussion becomes about whether or not there is a significant difference. But at least let's not argue about arithmetic.

If you would otherwise vote Democrat but are staying at home or voting 3rd party because of your dislike of Biden, then you are tautologically casting a vote for Trump. — EricH

Simple arithmetic, yes. A vote for third party is a throw-away vote. No one is arguing seriously that a third party candidate has a chance of winning. To throw a vote away that would otherwise have gone to a less harmful candidate is helping the more damaging party (which is also not seriously disputed). It may make you feel better, and you may think you're doing the right thing -- fine. But let's not argue with simple counting.

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. We can predict with reasonable certainty that a second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US and the larger world. With Biden, at least there is a chance of improvement.

In a perfect world we would not have to choose between two deeply flawed candidates, but - as the saying goes - we need to accept that there are things we cannot change. I wish that the Democratic Party had found a better candidate, but if it comes down to Biden vs. Trump, I will hold my nose and vote for Biden. — EricH

Exactly right, but also something more important: will a Biden administration or Trump administration be more open to progressive goals? Take them both out of the equation -- I don't like either -- and answer the question seriously. I don't think it's that hard. So why should we shoot ourselves in the foot because the DNC are corrupt? They managed to rally around Biden and got enough people to vote for him. It was sleazy how they did that, but in my view rolling over isn't an option. First, kick Trump out, the secondly push the Democrat administration towards what we (and Bernie) want. This is in fact why Bernie is supporting Biden, who's already made concessions (and ought to).

Quit while you are far behind. You obviously do not have the intellectual resources to catch up. — Frank Apisa

Best bet is to ignore that one until he grows up or says something interesting. No sense pretending to have a rational conversation.

So withhold your vote...and aid Trump. — Frank Apisa

The impulse to want to do the morally upstanding thing is fine -- but what these people don't want to here is that this is both missing the point (because it's not simply about a candidate's character) and will actually cause more long-term damage, counter to their professed goals.

If you do not vote...you will not be "sitting this one out." You will be helping Trump. Trump, and the GOP, are hoping as many people as possible "sit this one out." Trump and the GOP are doing every thing they can to get as many people as possible to "sit this one out." — Frank Apisa

And succeeding -- again. You have to hand it to them -- they know how to play the game, so well in fact that they'll get millions of people to vote against their interests -- including progressives.

I don't think the answer is withdrawing, I think it's fighting. I think it's activism, organization, protests, lawsuits, etc. etc. Voting is only one action, done every four years. That's very limited democracy indeed, as you know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but it shouldn't be considered our only means of participation. Given our resources in this country, we have plenty of options available to us. This is how things change -- form the civil rights movement to the environmental movement to the gay rights movement. I am not advocating for a two-party system or even for the democratic party -- long term I'd like to see this destroyed -- but we have to think a little bigger than what button we push every four years, and it's in that larger context that we make that choice (which shouldn't take much mental effort, really): which of these rich, empty white guys do we think we can push more in the right direction? That's the attitude I take. We're also at a time where it really does matter, too, given climate change and nuclear weapons. It's no longer localized. So it won't do to simply walk away -- and even if that were a powerful strategy, we simply don't have the time to gamble on it. Too much needs to be done right now.

So if I were you, I'd help elect an administration that I could have some influence on and then help remove the puppet that they've installed if I believe he deserves removal. Not easy, but much more likely than if Trump is in office, and far better than passivity.

Remember, the democratic party IS changing -- look at AOC and Bernie. It's small, but that didn't happen from simply withdrawing support, it happened by fighting for something. Both run as Democrats...is that an issue? Is that supporting the DNC?

Even strategically, the long term better strategy is to withdraw support from the Dems, at the very least until they become something like a left wing party. — Baden

I think the better strategy is to elect them and demand actions from them, not to (perhaps inadvertently) assist their opposition, who happen to be extremely dangerous.

If I really thought Trump's further reign would make a huge difference globally on climate, it might sway me but having read your last detailed post on it, I don't even think you believe it's decisive. — Baden

Then perhaps I didn't communicate it clearly enough: if Trump is re-elected, the odds for organized human life in the future are greatly diminished. It'll be a clear disaster, as any climate scientist will tell you.

What I said was that Biden is not the environmentalist's dream candidate and will not go as far as I'd like to see (in all probability). But being a +2 against a -15 is still a large improvement indeed.

What you're doing from this point of view is making things worse in the long term for some minor short-term gain. — Baden

It's in fact exactly the opposite, given the reshaping of the courts and climate policy -- both having a lasting impact on people for years to come. Did voting third party in 2016 not have long-lasting effects? Trump has confirmed 1/4 of the circuit judges and two SCOTUS justices, for example. Plus we don't have time to play around.

It doesn't bother you at all that Trump or Biden will be the president one way or another? If I believed another candidate was viable, I'd be doing all I could to vote for them. This is all we have, currently. This is why Bernie Sanders has endorsed Biden (and Clinton), because at least then there is some say in what is done. With Trump, we're toast.

OK -- and what framework is that exactly?
— Xtrix

The framework that says everyone has to vote for a Dem or a Republican no matter who they are, — Baden

It's not that you HAVE to. You don't HAVE to exercise and eat better, but if your goal is to lose weight that's something you should do. My top priority is addressing the climate crisis, as this is an existential threat. I assume we all agree on that. It's only one example, and there are others, but it's a good one because of its importance. If our goal is to remove an administration that is exacerbating the crisis during a time when scientists tell us we have 10-20 years to act in a meaningful way, what should we do? What achieves that goal?

Some people actually believe in the principle of voting for those who most represent them both in terms of policy and character, regardless of strategic considerations. And if everyone voted that way, the two party system would eventually cease to exist because it relies on a despairing cynicism for the most part. — Baden

"Regardless of strategic considerations"? OK, in that case I agree. Like I've said before, I wanted Bernie Sanders as the nominee. In the end the votes weren't there. Granted, largely due to the media and the DNC rallying around Biden, but that could have been overcome. It wasn't -- should I be upset? Yes, and I am -- at the voters as well. But that seems to be the reality right now. Given this, what is left besides making a strategic choice -- if indeed one considers the goal of removing a cancer "strategy"?

Our whole argument is based on rejecting the diseased framework on which your arguments are premised. So, we're not going to see eye to eye. — Baden

OK -- and what framework is that exactly? We don't see eye-to-eye on Trump's administration, for example, accelerating the climate crisis with its policies? Or that both parties are essentially two factions of big business? Perhaps -- always seemed like we agreed on those things though. I think it's a matter that you're just projecting onto me things that aren't there. My argument is indeed a pragmatic one but a logical one also given my premises are correct about our goals. I've stated clearly what mine are -- I've yet to hear yours, besides emotional reasons (which I sympathize with).

Perhaps a better question: what do those voting for a third party candidate hope to accomplish by doing so? I ask this seriously. Is there some other goal besides disgust with the two candidates?

I'd advise you to go back and read what you said about neonspectraltoast and the arguments you used to support that. Maybe I should have just described them as "gibberish" instead of "stupid" and "idiotic". — Baden

This is what I said:

I can't vote for a rapist. I'll be sitting this one out.
— neonspectraltoast

Thus guaranteeing a rapist remains in office, but with the added benefit of destroying the planet.

Makes sense I guess. — Xtrix

Was this "shaming"? Was it throwing around insults?

It's pointing out what in my view is the obvious case: the more progressive people don't vote (as he is indicating here), the greater chances for the worst candidate, thus guaranteeing a rapist is in office (since Trump is also a rapist, allegedly) with the added benefit of destroying the planet.

Where is the upside? Explain that to me. Is it simply feeling better about not pushing a button for either candidate? If that's the case, it's understandable -- but in my view still a very big mistake. If it is something about teaching the DNC a lesson, also understandable -- but I don't see that this turned out so well the first time.

Other stuff you said previously did give me some insight, but accusing someone of supporting a rapist when that's exactly what you're doing and what they're refusing to do, I found annoying. The pragmatic stuff I just disagree with. — Baden

But who cares about annoyance? You're quite annoying to me too. I'm still able to pose an argument. If I'm missing something, show me I'm wrong. I don't even care if it comes with insults and sarcasm -- I can deal with it. But I haven't seen that done here. It's just adolescent posturing and nothing more. I'm happy to stand corrected.

and ,

Maybe it's best if you two just talk to yourselves. This way you won't have to learn anything, resting assured everyone else is an idiot.

What's sad is that you both apparently aren't adolescents. That at least would make the behavior understandable. Makes you wonder about how they pick "moderators" on this platform. :roll:

And Chomsky is an idiot on this. Much like his linguistics. — StreetlightX

Lol. And you know, too, because you've read some Daniel Everett. Good for you,

Double yawn.