Two centuries ago slavery was a social norm widely embraced and even more widely tolerated. — Pantagruel

The Nazi death camps is not something that occurred two centuries ago and was not a widely embraced social norm. However reprehensible slavery was, to be a slave was not to be put to death. The rejection of slavery as a social norm was an acceptance of the inherent value of human life.

Your outrage is far more of a social than an intellectual response, — Pantagruel

I reject this kind of intellectualist nihilistic historical relativism that separates thinking from being. We are not talking about abstract entities but human beings. There are always those who are not intellectually imprisoned by social norms, those who look beyond what is to what ought to be. Heidegger was not one of them. But even this is to grant Heidegger too much. Any decent person at that time could see that what the Nazis were doing was wrong.

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means. — NOS4A2

Well, that is a step in the right direction, but you leave the back door open. To say that it is possible he lost is to say it is possible he did not lose. If he lost then attempts to "take it back", no matter by the means, is illegal. To act on the possibility he did not lose when the evidence points unquestionably to the fact that he did lose is to act irresponsibly and any lawyer who knowingly attempts to "take it back" demonstrates either a disregard for the law or in inability to deal with reality. In either case, they are unfit to practice law.

There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. — NOS4A2

Contesting an election and attempting to overturn an election are two different things. As much as you attempt for it to be otherwise this is not a partisan issue.

After asking you three times you still have not said whether you think it is wrong to attempt to overturn an election.

There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections. — NOS4A2

There is a telling connection between Trump and McCarthy - Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.

Exactly what "problem"? — Pantagruel

His support of Nazism.

Is Heidegger culpable for something, or of something? — Pantagruel

Read his Rectoral Address

On a more individual basis there is his treatment of Jewish students.

Atrocities are perpetrated daily in the name of economics. I'd as soon excoriate those responsible for that as Heidegger. — Pantagruel

We do not have to pick one or the other.

The question is whether his philosophy and his Nazism are two different and unrelated things.

philosophy, by its very nature, is a kind of intellectual idealization. — Pantagruel

That may be one way in which it is practiced but intellectual idealization is not what philosophy is by its very nature. I think Heidegger would reject that claim.

We demonize in order to ignore. — Pantagruel

To acknowledge and face the problem is to neither demonize nor ignore him nor to deny his importance.

should we allow situational moral issues to to dictate philosophical interpretation. — Pantagruel

It is a grave mistake to assume that the two are separate. "Situational ethics" trivializes the extermination of groups of people. Central to Heidegger's "philosophical interpretation" is the preeminent place and role of human beings.That some human beings, the German Volk, are to play an important world historical role and others are not simply to be ignored or excluded but round up and put in death camps, is evidence of the troubling failure of his philosophical interpretation.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. — NOS4A2

You accused me of hiding something and identified four key points. The first of your key points was that the project was started by a Democrat.

Dershowitz (a Democrat) — NOS4A2

He was a Democrat. He says he has been excluded. His resentment against the Democrats is evident. This is his membership card to the Party of Trump.

Who cares about their party affiliation? — NOS4A2

Apparently you do, until you don't. But then again you do:

A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights ...
This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort ... — NOS4A2

In all this pointing to and then denying the importance of party affiliation, you overlook the main issue:

Election integrity. I'll ask you for the third time. Do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide. — NOS4A2

I am not trying to hide anything. Let's look at your key points:

1. As I said, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, as your point 4 supports. The reason why most are Democrats is because most Republicans lack to backbone to stand against Trump and his efforts to overturn the election.

2. Brad Carver's case was dismissed. So? He is one out of over 100 they are targeting. Do you really think that one case being dismissed means that over 100 lawyers did not attempt to overturn the election? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

3. Yes. They have made their intentions clear: deterring lawyers from attempts to overturn future legitimate elections. Again, do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

4. Daschle, a Democrat is a member of the advisory board. Paul Rosenzweig, as I pointed out, is a conservative and member of the Federalist Society. A Democrat and a Republican working together to preserve election integrity. Sounds suspicious! I better hide that.

I don’t care about the complaint of anti-Trump forces ... — NOS4A2

Of course you don't. At least now that it is clear you can't spin it the way you want. You brought it up.

Some key points in the Axios article:

1.The group is working to expose and try to disbar lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuit.

None of those lawsuits were found to have merit and those who attempt to overturn an election should be exposed. Those who seek to bring it to light do not operate in the shadows.

2.The 65 Project hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections.

3 Advisory board members include Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society.

Meritless efforts to overturn an election should not be tolerated.

I was just listing the typical anti-Trumpism he faced — NOS4A2

Obviously, you did not read the complaint against Dershowitz. Your spurious allegation that the 65 Project is shadowy is without evidence. This is a typical Trumpian tactic, attempt to discredit anyone who attempts to bring to light to the actions of Trump and his minions.

Dershowitz and others whose lawsuit, Lake v Hobbs, against the Grand Canyon State’s election process, failed and Dershowitz and the others were sactioned. For details.

Why would you pretend I said the complaint against Dershowitz has something to do with him being a social outcast? — NOS4A2

You say that he has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 Project have sought to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. How has he illustrated this? In the next sentence you say he notes how he has been effectively alienated from his usual social group because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation.

One has nothing to do with the other, but you move from the one to the other as if it is all one and the same. Until you are called out on it. His defense of Trump in the first impeachment has nothing to do with the 65 Project's complaint against him. He, like Trump, wants to play the victim.

As usual, short on facts and long on hyperbole and misrepresentation. The complaint against Dershowitz has nothing to do with him being a social outcast.

But from a single example, the child cannot know what "table" is referring to. — RussellA

Right, but life with a child is not a matter of single examples.

Only by experiencing many examples will the child be able to discover a family resemblance in the examples and narrow down the meaning of "table" to what we know as the concept "table". — RussellA

The child does not think in terms of 'family resemblance', but rather she learns which things are and are not called tables. It is only much later that she might ask what all these things have in common other than being tables. But whether such a question occurs to her or not, that is not how a language is learned or how it functions.

It is not the job of a criminal lawyer to aid and abet criminal activity. After the fact, the lawyer's job is to establish that there was no criminal activity.

Witty's Tractatus where he just starts with the assumption about objects, as if the ontological work of positing this view doesn't even need to be explained. — schopenhauer1

The objects and names discussed in the PI are not the simple objects and names of the Tractatus.

If things in the child's world are not named, how does the child learn the names of things. — RussellA

They are named, but the name of things in the child's world are not generally learned by going around pointing.

The child must already know what a table is if the child knows the toy is on top of it. — RussellA

This is how he learns what a table is - it is what the toy is on. It is where we sit to eat.

Every table in the world is different in some way. — RussellA

Yes, and some things that are not tables may be the same as a table in some way. A child might call a horse a big dog. He is eventually corrected. He might then call a cow a horse. He is eventually corrected. For the time being, however, 'big dog' may be sufficient. In time he learns that some differences do not matter for what a thing is called and others do.

How does a child learn a new word, such as "table". They are shown many examples of things, similar in some way, but all different, and as Wittgenstein says, having family resemblances. Each particular thing is a token of a general type.

We know when the child understands the meaning of the word "table", when we ask the child to point to a "table" ... — RussellA

This is a very odd picture. No one goes around pointing to various things in the child's world and naming them. A child learns the word 'table' in the context of her life. Where her food or toy is on the table, or she is under the table, or has bumped into the table and hurt herself.

They know how to use the word. — RussellA

Pointing to objects is not how we use words. We know she understands the word 'table' not because she points to it but because when we tell her the toy is on the table she knows were to look.

The concept "table" only exists in the mind and not the world. What exists in the world are particular examples, particular instantiations, of our concept of the word "table". — RussellA

For the child what exists are not examples or instantiations of concepts. What exists are the things she encounters and uses, the things she learns to call 'table' and 'chair'. She does not begin at the level of concepts.

The word "table" in the sentence "bring me a table" is not referring to a table in the world ... — RussellA

Of course it is! What is she to bring if not a table in the world? She learns that some of the things she might brings are tables and others are not. She learns that the coffee table is a table even though it different than the kitchen table and that the stool is not a table even though her toy is on it.

As I read On Certainty it is not that one cannot doubt but that we do not doubt.

We are certain that the Earth revolves around the sun. In earlier times people were certain that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The Copernican Revolution was not simply a matter of exchanging places. It is that man is displaced from the center.

140. We do not learn the practice of making empirical judgments by learning rules: we are taught
judgments and their connexion with other judgments. A totality of judgments is made plausible to
us.
141. When we first begin to believe anything, what we believe is not a single proposition, it is a
whole system of propositions. (Light dawns gradually over the whole.)
142. It is not single axioms that strike me as obvious, it is a system in which consequences and
premises give one another mutual support.

152. I do not explicitly learn the propositions that stand fast for me. I can discover them
subsequently like the axis around which a body rotates. This axis is not fixed in the sense that
anything holds it fast, but the movement around it determines its immobility.

305. Here once more there is needed a step like the one taken in relativity theory.

The chorus is an independent voice. Part of the ventriloquist's joke is that the dummy has an independent voice.

It is an interesting question to what extent the voice of the law in the Crito differ from that of the law itself.

As you say, Wittgenstein is responding to Augustine. — RussellA

This picture of language is the picture drawn in the Tractatus.

1) As with Augustine, the word "slab" gets its meaning from referring to a slab in the world.
2) The word "slab" doesn't get its meaning from referring to a slab in the world, but instead gets its meaning from being read in context within the other words used in the text. — RussellA

The word slab as used in the builder's language does not simply refer to the slab in the world, to a piece of stone. It functions as a command. It means "bring me a slab". The builder's language does not occur in a text, but rather in the context of the activity of building.

Does he believe that no word gets its meaning from referring to an object in the world ? — RussellA

He does not deny that some words refer to objects. What he rejects is that EVERY word functions in this way. The builder's language makes this point by showing that the names of objects is an incomplete picture of the language.

Oh, hell, you're not doing a Socrates on me, are you?! — Amity

No. I thought the chorus did not speak directly to the actors.

There is another difference. The laws are not a separate character or entity, but Socrates speaking on behalf of the laws.

Are you sure about that? — Amity

No. I plead ignorance. Perhaps you can persuade me.

I see that they are alike in so far as many voices sing as one, but my impression is that the chorus stands apart and is not a participant that speaks to the characters.

The example of the shopkeeper and the apples is in response to the picture of language as words naming objects.

In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.

(PI 1)

Red is not the name of an object, but names the color of the apples. Five tells him how many, and is not an object either. Apple names an object, but naming apples is not what this use of language is about.

What is the meaning of the slip of paper with the words "five red apples"? The object, the slip of paper, is not the meaning of the slip of paper. If the shopkeeper's apprentice hands him this slip of paper it might be an inventory list. If I found it I would not know what it means. I would not know what to do with in. Perhaps it is an IOU or some ingredients for a recipe.

The sentence "I want five apples" specifies how many apples I want, but the meaning of the sentence is under determined. What it means to the shopkeeper is not what it means when I express a wish.

I will observe Socrates is a character in Plato's plays. — Paine

The first thing that comes to mind in making that comparison is that unlike the works of the playwrights the dialogues do not contain a chorus.

Socrates states what is at issue in the Philebus:

So, Philebus, for his part, says that what is good for every creature is enjoyment, pleasure and delight and anything in harmony with that general category. Whereas I contend that not these but understanding, reasoning, memory and their kindred, right opinion and true thinking, are better and more desirable than pleasure for all of those who are able to acquire them, and that they are supremely beneficial to anyone who can attain them now or in the future.

(11b-c, Horan's online translation)

The first thing to be noted is that Philebus' claim that what is good for every creature is questionable if there is a creature who is capable of thought and for which to think is better than pleasure. What may be good for many may not be good for all. On the other hand, what may be good for the one capable of thought will not be good for the many if they are not capable.

A bit later Socrates says:

Take understanding, knowledge, reason and anything else I proposed at the outset and declared to be good when I asked what good is.

(13e)

The question "what is good?" can be answered in many ways. Two that are given here are - pleasure and thinking. What had not been determined at the outset, however, is what the good itself, that one thing, is. There may be many or even an unlimited number of things that are said to be good. Unless we are able to determine at the outset what the good itself is the argument will not come to an end.

Interesting. I didn't know of this 'music-playing' Socrates. — Amity

A few quick comments:

Socrates says he has had this dream before and had always understood it to mean doing what he is always doing:

since philosophy is the greatest music.” (61a)

Now he thinks the dream meant:

make music in the popular sense of the word.

So he:

took whatever stories were to hand, the fables of Aesop which I know, and turned the first ones I came upon into verse.

Taking whatever stories that were at hand suggests that the content of music in the popular sense did not much matter.

The Greek term νόμος, from which we get the term 'norm', means custom, law, and also song (νόμος).

Socrates sings the song of the law. — Fooloso4

A song that he composes for Crito, but he does not write it down. It is not the equivalent of the written law. Perhaps there is a connection between Socrates taking Aesop, something already written and turning it into verse, and taking the law of Athens and turning it into music in the popular sense. In other words, a song for the many.

In the Phaedo, in response to his friend's fear of death Socrates says:

What you should do is to sing him incantations each day until you sing [charm] away his fears.

(77e)

Socrates' own music consists of arguments, but that will not do for the many who need to be charmed.

I would say language-games never reflect the facts. Rather, facts only get their sense within language-games. — Joshs

From Wittgenstein's Zettel:

Do I want to say, then, that certain facts are favorable to the formation of certain concepts; or again unfavorable? And does experience teach us this? It is a fact of experience that human beings alter their concepts, exchange them for others when they learn new facts; when in this way what was formerly important to them becomes unimportant, and vice versa. (It is discovered e.g. that what formerly counted as a difference in kind, is really only a difference in degree.

(352)

Expertise is relative, as is wisdom. — Amity

One problem is that if we are not experts or wise how can we evaluate whether someone else is? Socrates uses the example of a trainer. If he is able to improve someone's strength, endurance, and speed then we have good reason to think the opinion of the trainer regarding such matters is worth heeding.

What about Socrates? Was he guilty of corrupting the young? By the measure of the many who value the ancestral ways he was. His followers though will say that they have been made better. And yet, if they had been corrupted they might imagine they have been improved.

And it seems that Wittgenstein can never do wrong with many of his defenders. — schopenhauer1

I won't speak for anyone else, but as I see it, what is at issue is not agreement or disagreement but the strength of an interpretation. A problematic interpretation is problematic whether the interpreter agrees or disagrees with an author.

Who is the expert in Socrates' story? He is. — Amity

But he denies knowing anything noble and good (Apology 21d). We should be open to the possibility that no such expert exists. He does say that we should pay attention to some opinions but not others, but without knowledge on what basis can we determine which opinions are to be valued?

there is no reasoning with them. — GRWelsh

Sometimes other means of "persuasion" are necessary.

And besides, Socrates own doubt is the case here, and not whether Socratic philosophy has elements of doubt. — Pussycat

Unlike modern skepticism, Socratic skepticism is the condition that gives rise to and guides his inquiry. The Greek term skepsis means both doubt and inquiry.

I find that the painting of Socrates as a man devoid of doubt, with no fear of death, no regrets (presumably no guilt either) and looking forward to the afterlife (if any), very foreign to me — Pussycat

Some of his friends felt the same way.

Rather dogmatic, won't you think? — Pussycat

No. To the contrary skepsis informs his attitude to death. Philosophy as preparation for death is about what we do in life. We do not know what happens when we die. Our time here and now may be all we have. So how best to live it?

He asks endless questions without trying to draw these together into a comprehensive answer. In fact, he seems proud that he makes no attempt at theorising. — RussellA

The same was and is said of Socrates. The reason in both cases can be found in the preface to PI:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.

Some of the rhetoric I see related to Trump is disturbing. — GRWelsh

It certainly is, but part of the rhetorical strategy is to deny that the warnings are threats. "I'm not saying this is what I or we will do, but it is what will happen".

I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets.

Your focus is me and not the arguments — NOS4A2

This is exactly what @schopenhauer1 was talking about with his neologism the "TPF effect".

Doubt, or more precisely, knowledge of ignorance, is central to Socratic philosophy. Socrates was not plagued by doubt. On the contrary, he went to his death without fear, trusting that if there are rewards and punishment in Hades it is something he looks forward to. And if death is an endless, dreamless sleep he has no regrets about the life he lived.

You described my intentions — NOS4A2

Actually, I have often wondered what your intentions are. What you attempt to do and whatever your intentions might be in doing so are two different things.

you feign interest but resort to ad hominem. — NOS4A2

You make this accusation in response, or rather instead of responding to what you quoted.

In what way does your rejection of such things as the common good and your not believing in law miss the mark? In what way is it something other than your theme of:

radical individualist autonomy.

Please explain how questioning your political claims is resorting to ad hominem.

I’m afraid your mind-reading skills are as poor as your arguments. — NOS4A2

No mind reading necessary. No matter how you attempt to dress it up your arguments fall under two related themes: defending Trump and radical individualist autonomy.

Much nicer than what I came up with but did not say because I am pretending to be nice.

Fooloso4, is there a term for when someone willfully pretends like an argument was never made and you start over and over and over again from scratch? — schopenhauer1

A few come to mind, but ...