What the incredibly dumb 'arithmetic' leaves out of the equation is of course that a vote for either legitimates the entire operation of blackmail which forced one in that position to begin with. Stupid inputs, stupid outputs. — StreetlightX

Yawn.

So you've cited Chomsky. And? Far as I know, Chomsky made a pragmatic argument which I've not criticized (though I may disagree with it). It's the attempts at vote-shaming I've been objecting to. — Baden

Yes, I know -- which is why I gave a detailed response to you before on the issues, which you said you'd respond to and never did. Was that vote-shaming? I haven't once said, for example, that you're an idiot for voting third party. So who's attempting to "shame" whom?

In any case, I'll be clear: I'm not trying to shame anyone. If I came off that way, it's unintended.

It's not an ad hom, you are literally saying extremely stupid things. — Baden

So "idiotic" and "stupid" aren't ad homs? Have it your way. I'm not offended, but I found it interesting given what you've said in the past.

For example, by your logic, abstaining from voting means voting for Trump and Biden simultaneously (why would it only mean voting for Trump?) — Baden

When did I say this? I've said several times now that if you believe in progressive policies (as I believe you do, though perhaps I'm wrong), and if your goal is to prevent the most damaging administration from wielding power, then it follows that you vote against the least progressive and the more damaging. That is, indeed, logic.

and voting for a third party must mean voting for Trump, Biden, and that third party simultaneously. — Baden

Again, I'm not sure where you get "simultaneously." Rather, it's a vote for Trump. Why? Because you know very well a third party candidate has no chance of winning (I assume), and that's not the reason you're voting for them in the first place -- you're voting for them, as you've made quite clear, because you can't vote for a rapist.

That's fine, but what you fail to see is that by essentially throwing away your vote, which would otherwise have gone to the candidate which is less harmful, you're assisting the more harmful candidate (in this case Trump) to win. This happened last time as well with Clinton -- were the protest votes worth four years of Trump? I didn't like her either, but I can say definitely that the answer is "No."

I'm not engaging with you anymore until you stop that. — Baden

Does this not count? Well regardless: by all means stop engaging.

Pull the lever (Biden). Don't pull the lever (Trump). How many people are on the tracks in front of either? It certainly seems like there are more on the Trump side. — ProbablyTrue

This is right, actually. But it's not about Trump or Biden as people -- one's a sociopath, the other is borderline senile. Both are fairly empty. But once you look at the policies being carried out, and I've mentioned the most important (in my view) -- climate change -- then it's fairly obvious how many people will be harmed by Trump compared to Biden's administration. Body counts and human suffering matters.

So we have to at least get rid of the cancer and prevent the worst from happening. Then we deal with Biden -- even impeach him, who cares? Maybe he'll be replaced before November -- that'd be fine too. I doubt it, but it's possible. Doesn't change the fact that Trump is the worst.

First of all, there are potential third party options, so abstaining is not the only way to not vote for a rapist. As for your logic, if you can't work out how stupid what you're saying is you should not be on this forum. It is literal nonsense. — Baden

Funny coming from the person who once stated:

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. — Baden

Voting third party, as I've stated before, is also a vote for Trump (again, unless you would have voted Republican). If your goal is to vote out the most destructive administration, by abstaining or voting third party you're having the opposite effect. That is, indeed, idiotic logic -- I agree.

I'm also not alone in this argument. I've cited Chomsky a number of times, for example. If I'm in the same "idiotic" league as Chomsky, I take it as a compliment.

It's interesting you get so emotional about all of this. By all means don't let me disillusion you. But I'd recommend not engaging on public forums.

It's also worth pointing out that we don't know for a certainty what happened, with Trump or Biden. I happen to believe the accusers of both -- but it's not on the basis of the "character" of the person running for office that we should be voting. Did Reagan have a clue what was going on in his own administration? Was it worthwhile voting for Bush because we'd rather have a beer with him?

It's pathological as you said. The attempt to shame someone else for refusing to do what they themselves are doing. — Baden

It's not about "shame," it's about logic. You claim to care about rape, yet you believe not voting absolves you of any responsibility in what happens. It doesn't. By abstaining, you're helping Trump -- unless you're a conservative. Is he not a rapist?

You've also avoided, multiple times now, the real issues -- e.g., climate policy. Which is crucial. As I've said many times, it's not about Biden as a person. We can keep it about history and character if we want to decide that way -- fine. That's superficial and easy. If it were only about that, I probably wouldn't vote either.

The real issue, if we truly care about what we profess to care about, is about which administration (not the persona) is most damaging. Is that Trump's administration or Biden's?This is the only question that's relevant. If you don't think there's a difference, we're back to where we started. I'd argue there is a definite difference.

not voting... is indeed a vote.
— Xtrix

Lol. — StreetlightX

Simple arithmetic isn't so simple. My fault.

You have two people. A votes, B abstains. If B had voted, it would cancel out vote A. By not voting, A vote counts and that candidate wins.

The act of pressing a button is irrelevant.

And voting in a rapist.
— Xtrix

No, that would be you. You've just said you believe Reade.

Jesus, this is like me telling someone if they don't punch someone in the face just like I'm going to, they're guilty of battery. It's literally that stupid. — Baden

And not voting is voting in Trump, also a rapist. The difference is one administration can be pressured to not destroy the environment completely, the other cannot. It's really that simple. No one is saying it's a good choice, you just don't want to hear it.

Yes, not voting or voting third party is indeed a vote for Trump.

Simple arithmetic. Very 1984.

Rapists don't represent me. — neonspectraltoast

Yes, one currently does and will continue to. If you're OK with that, best of luck to you.

Well done for having minimal principles and for refusing to be politically blackmailed. — StreetlightX

And voting in a rapist.

But feeling morally superior for sitting and doing nothing. Kudos.

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.

What do you think it says about Biden? — frank

That he's a creepy asshole. What's your point? Because you're missing mine. See above.

If you're implying he's the anti-Christ because of this, I might remind you that Trump has been credibly accused by over a dozen women. So given this awful choice, if he's not tried and convicted, I'll vote for him -- because the alternative is far worse. It's not an endorsement of Biden, the DNC, the Democratic party generally, his personality, his history, his ideology. It's a vote for an administration that will be more open to listening to scientists, will stock scientists in the EPA, will appoint non-reactionary justices to the Supreme Court, etc.

I could definitely live without Biden and in fact think he's a terrible, terrible choice -- once again. It should have been Sanders.

Do you believe Tara Reade? — frank

Yes.

Even if he turns out to be the Antichrist? — frank

Well in that case, yeah I'd vote Trump.

Yes I know. I began with "don't bother with people who..." and then went on about that. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at your interlocutors.

My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? — Justin Peterson

This is equating the human being with thinking -- the λογον (logon) of ζοον εψηον λογον, which has a long history going back at least to Aristotle. Your real question should be: "What is 'thought'?" and "What is 'spirit'"? Approaching these concepts historically (and etymologically) can be illuminating indeed. It'll give you some sense of where we are.

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind. — Justin Peterson

Already confusing. What "two states"? It sounds like the two states may be the conscious and unconscious states, but then where does the "because of this" come into play? Because of what? This implies that the two states of thought are the basis for the conscious and unconscious mind. Fine, but then what are those states? It's ambiguous.

When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind. Therefore, for all propositions to be true there will be no conflict and so there will be no identity of the "self". The self will determine itself to be everything. So there would be no difference between the definition of "me", and the definition of "you". There is simply the All, and the Nothing. It's possible this was what had happened before the Big Bang, speaking under the notion that the Big Bang was simply the composition of all timeless possibilities, and after the Big Bang — Justin Peterson

Sounds like quasi-Eastern philosophy/spirituality, but it's very vague. You have to do better explaining your terms. You also lost me with the Big Bang references, although I think I know what you're getting at. The Big Bang is a theory that concerns the first moments of the universe -- it has nothing whatsoever to say about the "All" and the "Nothing." There's a lot of woo-woo surrounding it, as there is with quantum mechanics, but it's best not to interject it.

After a vast amount of time, the gravitational pull of the planets and the stars will become equal, and so the stars and the planets will be immovable. It is at this point that time ceases. — Justin Peterson

But you've said nothing about what time is. We don't know whether it'll cease or not until we know what it is. Is it motion? Change? Duration? A measurement? A form of sensibility? A unity of ecstasies? Is it essentially space (as in Bergson)?

That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now. — Justin Peterson

This has been argued in the East and the West. It's no surprise that time consistently plays a central role in philosophy, religion, and science -- but while we may privilege the "now" (the present), that's not how we live our lives, and when we try to live this way (through meditation, mindfulness practices, etc), although this may be beneficial in many ways, there are still multiple aspects of our being that we still simply overlook. It's impossible to be aware of everything in any given moment. In fact, often times this gets in the way of habitually, skillfully navigating the world. A lot of this we WANT to be "second nature" and largely unconscious. (See the Centipede Dilemma.)

Better to not reinvent the wheel when it comes to defining time, existence, etc. Better to familiarize yourself with some of the unpretentious work that's been done on the subjects.

We have to do both, really. The emphasis is in fact shifting more towards preparation as it becomes more and more obvious. The links aren't always obvious, either. So given a largely ignorant population, who keep electing deniers, we're all but guaranteeing our demise.

The best thing Biden and any leader can do is to simply listen to the scientists.

Anyway, one thing I'll challenge you on now is the idea that Trump is an existential threat re climate change. He has four more years. What is the extent of the damage you think he'll do in that time as opposed to Biden being in charge? Give me some specifics. — Baden

Sure. It's fairly easy to see what it will be, given there's nearly 4 years of well-documented policies already available. And the best way to predict future behavior is past behavior, as they say.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Trump nor the Republicans are even hiding their attitude towards this issue anymore. They are telling us, to our faces, that they don't believe there's an issue, they don't trust the scientists, they're "skeptical," etc.

As far as actions, the NYT (and others) have a running tab of environmental regulations that have been or are in the process of being destroyed. The biggest is car emissions standards and regulating methane leaks.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?fbclid=IwAR0xtmcECtsmHsq2Rst3sHZdu6Mt39_HPljzzuNh6_VdkQxNdTWXTp-4mSM

There's been the appointments of oil executives and lobbyists to the EPA, the censoring of scientific information, the removal of any mention of "climate change" from their website, etc etc.

He's opened up millions of acres of public lands for oil and gas extraction leases. Many are currently in the courts.

Trump has tried repeatedly, based on a campaign promise, to prop up a dying coal industry ("Trump digs coal!"), and has taken steps in doing so -- steps which had been dictated nearly verbatim from Murray Energy, a major Trump donor (now going bankrupt).

Then there's the pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which will happen a day after the election (if Trump is re-elected). Say what you will about the agreement (it has no teeth and barely does enough), it's something the US could be in the lead on. It's being abandoned altogether by Trump and co. We'll be an outlier as one of the only nations on earth not in the agreement.

All very well documented, not secret.

How does this compare with Biden? My suspicion is that although Biden claims to be in favor of a Green New Deal and has vowed to stop any "new" drilling, he'll try going the Obama route of encouraging natural gas (which produces less CO2 than coal and oil) and taking only baby steps towards Paris Accord goals, unless pressured by environmental groups to do more (which is at least possible, whereas with the Trump administration we hit a brick wall and are in fact fighting just to prevent any gains already made in the past from being destroyed).

So here we have a real easy comparison:

One administration denies anything is happening and happily takes orders from the fossil fuel industry, appointing their executives and lobbyists to the very institution in charge of monitoring them. In other words, wants to step on the gas so we go over the cliff quicker.

The other claims climate change is real and important, will stock the EPA, as in the past, with scientists, will remain in the Paris Accords, will prevent further drilling on public lands, will at least posture as a leader in this cause (which is important for other countries), and will be sympathetic to activist causes (like Native American protests of pipelines through tribal lands, etc). All of which really should be considered the bare minimum. Hopefully they do much more. But that's the choice.

If you want a detailed plan of what Biden is proposing, see here: https://joebiden.com/climate/

Remember, I'm not saying he's the environmentalist's dream candidate. But given the alternative, he might as well be.

This isn't any old issue, either. It's the issue of our time. We just can't mess around with it, it's too important. We have to get our priorities straight.

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. — Baden

No, it isn't that complicated. I don't think you and I really "disagree," either. You know as well as I do that both political parties in the United States are beholden to "special interests" (i.e., corporate interests), and that we're living in an era of a savage version of capitalism that started roughly 40 years ago (neoliberalism). We also agree, I think, that at this point in history we are facing an imminent existential crisis, comparable only to nuclear war in its potential for destroying human life.

None of these points require great intellectual capability. They're factual claims, and really transcend any political ideology. All you have to do is look around at how things work, and maybe listen to a few scientists -- in the same way we do with everything that hasn't been politicized and manufactured to be "controversial."

All right, so in the end we're left with an admittedly poor choice, once again, between two old white men with questionable (to say the very least) character, claims of sexual assault, possible cognitive decline, etc.

Given the above situation, particularly regarding our facing extinction, what political party do we want appointing department heads (say the EPA), judges, Supreme Court justices? Who would be preferable?

We can claim that there is no difference at all, that both are equally or roughly as bad, albeit in different ways. I simply don't agree with that. The Republican party has simply gone off the rails at this point, while the Democrats are essentially "moderate Republicans."

But hone in on that one issue -- the most pressing, climate change -- and ask what not only the rhetoric is, but what the policies are, and see if there's any discernible difference. Turns out there is. Yes, a relatively small difference but, given our status, this reverberates throughout the world.

So we have one party, with Trump in the lead as the loudest, essentially denying anything is happening at all. Furthermore, he and the Republicans want to accelerate the problem -- and there's 3 years of policies that show this, which have been well documented.

We have another party who says the right things and who take only marginal steps forwards -- not nearly enough, like the Paris Accords. OK, not great -- but something. They've also shown to be much more influenceable in terms of progressive policies generally -- and this is crucial.

All of this may be long-winded and boring, and not as much fun as discussing character or about how corrupt the DNC is (which I agree with), but is there any real choice?

When these are the only options currently available, we should require a few seconds to make the easy choice, help get the less damaging party take control, and then continue hammering away at them. The other option, and one advocated here by a few people, is to vote third party, write-in, or not vote at all -- to send a message, for spite, for moral reasons, etc. All of which is a vote for Trump and the "most dangerous party in human history" (Chomsky). Why? Simple arithmetic. Another thing we can agree on.

I think the choice is clear.

Discussing this really misses the larger point, too. Remember that the real work is done not every 4 years when we get to push a button, but day after day of small steps -- small, local work. Organizing. Discussing issues with friends and families and neighbors. Educating people (and ourselves). Signing petitions, staging protests, initiating lawsuits, etc.

In addition, Trump is a crook, a whore-monger, and an ignorant, stupid, classless boor. — Frank Apisa

More importantly, his environmental policies are systematically destroying the chances for organized human life in the future, at a time when scientists are telling us we don't have time to waste.

That's far more dangerous than telling people to drink bleach or yelling at reporters.

No need engaging in conversation that's irrelevant. I don't care about personality or about the person's history, since their mostly figureheads. Let them be tried and convicted. I care - as we all should - in what the policies are and how far we can push them in the correct direction (in this case, listening to climate science).

Engaging in speculation about character is superficial and easy. It matters to those who can't think their way out of a plastic bag - don't play that game.

I see the immediate issue and I understand your position, but the existential threat in my view is the two-party system itself not one or other party. That's where we differ. — Baden

You see the immediate issue, yet still feel it's the two-party system that's the existential threat. Well that's a nice position to have, because that way we don't have to think very hard and it sounds so very outside the mainstream, but the fact remains: climate change is the existential threat. Is the two party system a problem? Certainly - a big problem. So's the electoral college, etc. If I had a magic wand, I'd change all that.

That's easy to say, but in reality we're very far from it. What we can do is consider our short term options - the only way to achieve any larger goal. As it is, we're given an unfortunate choice between an administration that has and will take us backwards, and one who will at the very least be open to activist pressure. That may be a small difference, but given we're the most powerful country in history, it matters all the same.

Voting third party or not voting at all under the guise of "Republicans and democrats are all the same" or "the two party system is corrupt" is obsolete.

A Trump and Biden administration are very different things, even conceding that they're both two factions of the corporate party. In these times, even the small differences matter.

If you want to challenge any of that, you better quote me or consider yourself corrected. — Baden

I don't recall referring to you once.

The point here is to highlight the fact that at some point, the character of the person elected must matter. — Baden

And what an insightful point it is.

Where do we rank Trump's character? Rape and pedophilia aside, what we do know for certain is this: "Climate change is a Chinese hoax."

So we're left with a choice. Two accused rapists (one with over 10 women corroborating), both beholden to the corporate sector. We don't know for certain about the former, but we do know from the least 4 years about where Trump wants to take the country: right off the cliff.

A vote for Biden is not a vote in favor of the DNC or his character, it's a vote against Trump. Let Biden be thrown out of office - he's an empty candidate anyway. What matters is getting rid of the tumor and having an administration that can be pressured into sensible actions. That may seem like nothing, but it's literally everything. It's an entire cabinet, Supreme Court justices, circuit judges, Department heads, etc etc.

Or we can take the easy road and discuss the "character" of someone who's a figurehead anyway. I prefer looking at what can be done in terms of policies, particularly regarding the existential threat we're facing.

Call me crazy.

Oh, so you're in favor of rape. Got it.

See how easy it is? This level of argument in a philosophy forum is truly pathetic.

I agree. It is pathetic that I have to make this choice. A second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US & the world. I would vote for a trained seal over Trump - provided that the trainer was a Democrat. I wish the dems could find a better candidate than Biden. — EricH

Don't bother with these morally upstanding people helping to re-elect Trump. In their minds, if you vote Biden you're just as bad as Trump voters. It's really that black and white. Forget an investigation, and never mind that you're not a democrat, not a Biden fan at all, would be glad to see an investigation and him dropping out of the race -- forget even how dangerous another 4 years of Trump is, etc. etc. -- that's too nuanced to consider.

The only logical solution? Don't vote or vote third party. Because both are "rapists." Also, ignore the fact that this strategy will also elect an alleged rapist -- one who's administration denies climate science (and any science they don't like) while in the midst of an environmental crisis and pandemic. Doesn't matter. Got to teach the DNC a lesson.

Notice too that the position has shifted. Now it's all about "rape." Why? Because it's far easier to take a righteous stand on that -- ergo, it happened; they're certain of it (because they have to be): Biden is a rapist. Now that this has been established as an axiom, they can go on chastising those even considering voting for him.

Pathetic.

You strike me as someone who has never seriously considered an idea outside of their own belief system in their lives.

Of course Flynn is corrupt and deserves to be in prison. So does Trump. Half the administration are outright criminals. You'd have no problem recognizing this if it were a Democrat in office, and you know it.

Worth pondering about that for just a few seconds and then asking yourself if this red-blue thing is really the best way to approach the truth.

I see them as related. We simply don't consider most of our behavior reflectively, including sexual behavior (thoughts or actions). Any individual's piccadillos isn't terribly interesting outside of a general psychological understanding. How these are acquired through experience is interesting, for example.

I think analyzing sex in terms of power dynamics is on the right track. The effects of internet pornography and how it's effecting adolescent male's brains is another topic of importance.

I'm digressing from the OP, but my point is only that I agree it's an important topic and should be discussed openly more - especially in our morbid, Puritanical society.

An interesting topic. Schopenhauer (and Freud of course) broke it wide open. The studies by Kinsey et al, Masters and Johnson, are worth looking into as well. As for your question: I don't find it hard to talk about, but I have to talk about it objectively.

Like most things, it's a touchy subject and therefore MUCH more interesting than average conversation.

We all know our world is inherently meaningless. — Cidat

We don't "all know" that, because that sentence itself has meaning. Does it or does it not mean anything? If it does, there's some meaning in the world after all -- that sentence. If it doesn't, then there's meaning in the world.

But let's imagine that we happened to find some irrefutable meaning in this world. — Cidat

Meaning is always relative to some framework. From my philosophical standpoint, no reality truly matters. Truth is just truth. — Cidat

What about the framework that allows you to say that "life is meaningless"? That's an interpretation too, also based on a framework or a 'perspective.'

To paraphrase Nietzsche, it's not life that's meaningless but rather the people that make that assertion.

Does anything truly matter? — Cidat

No.

I'm 83...and I still care.

I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good. — Frank Apisa

All of these things, as you well know, have been around for decades. But it's the degree to which they've been amped up. They don't even care about pretext anymore -- it's just in-your-face corporatism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/one-in-every-four-circuit-court-judges-is-now-a-trump-appointee/2019/12/21/d6fa1e98-2336-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

And this is from December. Another thing to keep in mind while we consider a possible "protest vote."

More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me. — Frank Apisa

Getting discouraged is a surefire way to keep losing. Remember too: Even though 5 will vote for Trump, the large majority will vote for someone else (as was reflected in the 2016 election) with a plurality going to Biden. That's encouraging -- because despite putting up yet another weak candidate, most people are still sensible enough to vote against the sociopath in office.

There are more sane people in this country than not.

Most have no clue what's going on and don't bother with politics or voting at all. That's the largest "voting block" -- non-voters. The ones who do vote are stuck with the information they're given, depending on the geographical and cultural factors, and base their decisions on this information.

If it's conservative radio, it's far more likely you'll have a picture of the world colored by the interpretations of Rush Limbaugh and the rantings of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Dennis Prager. The same is true for liberals in the cities and suburbs listening to NPR, watching MSNBC, and reading the Huffington Post. A certain picture of the world emerges there as well. Decisions get made on this (mis)information. Most of it is propaganda. This creates two pictures that gradually drift farther and farther apart and become more extreme, generating hatred. It's clear that we've now reached a point where's no common set of facts anymore and no notion of "truth" -- there's only pure tribalism: anything my side believes is true, anything we don't like is fake news, and anyone holding opposite views are anti-American traitors. I see it being much more problematic on the right, and it could even lead to a kind of civil war in the not-so-distant future.

But given all this, the more sane party -- the Democratic Party -- still has the advantage. The Republican coalition is dying out. They are old, less diverse, more rural, less educated, and increasingly more working class. It's this last group that the Democrats should focus on winning back with progressive policies -- not the neoliberal Clintonite policies of the 90s (and much of Obama).

I see this advantage more and more, despite how close things are right now (seemingly 50/50 in the key swing states). As years pass, the electorate becomes younger and more diverse. That's worth paying attention to. They're more progressive, have less bias against the evil version of "socialism" from the Cold War era, care deeply about the environment, are more organized and politically engaged than Gen Xers, etc. But will it be too late?

In many respects it will -- they'll have to contend with the damage done by these previous generations, on the environment especially, but also with nuclear weapons, with the US judicial system now stacked with lifetime-tenured reactionary judges, with the weakening of unions, and with the elite control of the educational system, media, campaign funding and lobbying.

I'm old enough to see where this is leading and young enough to care.

5 people in this poll voting for Trump.

I shouldn't be shocked that ignorance abounds everywhere, even in philosophy forums.

Science uses concepts. A biologist will use concepts like organism, gene, structure and function. These concepts link up with predictions and experiments. Do you see any use of the concept of phusis by scientists in their theories or experiments? — fdrake

No I don't. I don't think most scientists think about or really care about the underlying philosophical assumptions or systems of beliefs that they hold, any more than computer programmers know or care about logic gates and transistors or engineers about Euclidean axioms.

Phusis is the Greek concept of being. ""Nature" and "physics" are therefore cognate.

I'm only again pointing out this etymology because it connects with our modern meaning of being , so knowing something about this root word's meaning (phusis) is potentially enlightening. I've pointed out some ways why it is in fact enlightening to think about and question this concept.

What Heidegger says is that both the Greek conception and our conception of "being" (and beings) has a temporal basis: the present.

This "emerging" that the Greeks thought of as being is also tied to their conception of truth (aletheia - unconcealedness), phenomena (beings; φαινόμενον, from φαίνειν (phainein) "to shine, show, manifest"), substance (ousia), logos (gathering), and physics (phusike). Heidegger sees dasein (human being, the "there") as a "disclosure," a "clearing," or a "lighting" -- so we're unconceal-ers, truth-openers, where being is an "issue" for us. Our understanding of anything at all (being) is connected with our being, which is a temporal one.

One particular mode of time gets privileged in the Greek understanding of beings: the present. And it's THIS that has persisted to the present day in philosophy and science (and our religion/spirituality!). Whenever we question the world reflectively, or try to understand anything at all "objectively" or "abstractly" we operate in the same mode of being we're in when things break down: the present-to-hand, which is a detached way of being, a "founded" mode which is the exception rather than the rule (the rule being ready-to-hand activity).

We therefore do this philosophical and scientiifc analysis while "presencing," which is a mode of time (the present) and which thus transforms beings into "present-at-hand" entities (e.g., "objects," "substances," res extensa) -- as opposed to the ordinary, everyday mode of being we're in, which is a caring, concernful coping, reading-to-hand activity (which is also interpreted as temporality: past/present/future unity).

This is why the Scholastics, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Kant, Hegel, and up to the present day has lead to the "dead end" of nihilism: everything is interpreted as an "object" or resource, nature becomes a matter of calculation and thus, most importantly, human beings get interpreted as "subjects," "creatures of God," "talking apes," "ghosts in a machine," etc., with all of the epistemological problems generated from these variations, and leading to untold political and economic blind alleys and even outright harm.

This is why I think you're seriously better off getting Trump for another 4 years than some appeasement from Biden that very likely had the effect of diminishing the start of this fire.

Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot. — Benkei

It's a fair point, and if this were any other election (besides 2016) I might agree it would be worthwhile just to rile the population even more. This is, after all, a time of more political organizing and activism than possibly even the 1960s, starting with the Women's March (largest protest in world history).

But we have to consider the larger context. For me, climate change is the most important issue -- because it's existential. Trump's policies on that are a well-known disaster and will continue for another four years, which we simply cannot afford. (Nuclear weapons are important too, as Chomsky has pointed out, but I know less about that other than Trump is accelerating our destruction there as well.)

If those things aren't scary enough, look at the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. McConnell has already appointed nearly 200 judges, and Trump has had two SCOTUS picks. Trump will almost certainly get another appointment if re-elected, shifting to a 6-3 conservative majority -- and possibly 2 (as Breyer is 81 years old). That will do untold long-term harm as well, leaving out even environmental policies mentioned above.

So as much as I'd love it, as someone who campaigned for Sanders, I'm forced to put reason over emotion in this case.

Appreciate the post, but I really don't know what you're asking me here. Perhaps you could be more straightforward. I think I've been fairly clear about my purposes.