At a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022 Trump said: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
NBC News

Some will deny he said this but there is a video of it.

Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025. From an interview on Fox News:

It’s a group of very, very conservative people. And they wrote a document that many of the points are fine. Many of the points are absolutely ridiculous.

But during the same interview he also said that he has:

“never seen” the plan and had “nothing to do with” it.

He has never seen it and has nothing to do with it, and yet he knows it has many fine points and many that are absolutely ridiculous. What we do not know, because he has not said, is which of them does he think are the many fine points and which are ridiculous.

Paul Dans has stepped down from his leadership position on the project, but a spokesman for Heritage said the project is not shutting down. In typical fashion, following the criticism of the plan, Trump is now attempting distance himself from the project, many of whose proposals were crafted by people who served in his first administration. Unfortunately for him, either way, the damage has been done.

I expect his opponents will continue to keep this before the public.

At some point his public speaking style changed from that of a fifth grader struggling to do a report on a book he had not read to that of a third rate comic doing borscht belt shtick.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. — Sam26

Based on the description quoted they do not separate from their bodies.

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence.

There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body. — Sam26

As you may know, his account has been criticized. For example:here

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.

I too question the distinction and relationship being made between consciousness and reality.

That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. — frank

The reason the Court is now so conservative is because McConnell blocked Obama's nominee and Trump, who lost the popular vote, went with the Federalist Society's recommendations.

According to Politico:

Our research shows the Court took a sharp swerve two years ago — and its decisions now closely mirror the views of the average Republican, not the average American.

According to the Pew Research Center, favorable views of the Supreme Court have fallen to an historic low.

Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob. — frank

The Founders worked to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority can be just as dangerous. And when lifetime appointments reflect the will of that minority we are all dragged down by a mob calling itself "patriots" and "the people".

A term limit of 10 or 15 years combined with staggered start dates seems long enough to counteract changing whims.

The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! — Amity

I do know that, and that is why I don't know what you mean. It is not a term with a single agreed upon meaning. It is used with regard to various concepts and mythologies.

And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. — Amity

Right. That is, as I understand it, what Socrates talk of likenesses is about. On the one hand is the question of the relation between the original and proposed image, on the other is the power of the image, of where it might take us.

I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. — Amity

Many take some mythology of god or gods as the truth, in some cases with a god being the purported source. They might even object to it being called an mythology.

If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...? — Amity

I am not suggesting we accept any likeness as more than a likeness. Without knowledge of the gods we are not able to say that any likeness is like the thing it is said to be a likeness of, but we can consider whether a likeness is a good likeness in so far as where that likeness might take us. Whether it inspires us to be good and do good, to be just, to love. I think Socrates has something like this in mind when he says that the gods are good.

Has any of it taught you how to tell the young both what to do and not do in such terms as they get it? — tim wood

Probably not. I have no answers. The best I might be able to do is give them a sense of phronesis, I cannot impart wisdom but perhaps can help them to appreciate the value of an attitude of thoughtfulness.

So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him? — Amity

I do not think it is from a shared perspective, but I don't think he was pandering. Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions.

When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit. — Amity

Well, the gods are, according to the text, not corporeal. When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being.

Why is it important to please them and not ourselves? — Amity

Oh the impiety! Drink the hemlock. If the gods are in charge then it would be best to please them. There are, of course, many problems with this. The Euthyphro addresses the question of what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves.

So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth — Amity

Socrates claims that the gods are good in every way (274a), but the poets' myths of the gods does not match this description. If we look at the whole of this paragraph it begins with "likeness to the truth". It is the person who knows the truth who is best equipped in every respect to discover the likenesses. One who knows the truth of the gods who is best equipped to give a true likeness. Without seeing or properly understanding god, however, (246c) mortal man cannot give a true likeness of the gods. We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way.

Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of?

An example comes to mind: to build the foundation for a house, you might well look at a book that tells how to do that. — tim wood

Given the connection between books and philosophy in your OP I took the question to be about books that address philosophical issues.

And this all-a-piece with the notion that meditation/study of books, at the expense of all else, is a destructive practice. — tim wood

Yes. I agree. I have spent long periods of my now long life without meditation/study of books. On the other hand, my time with books has been in large part a time with others as a student, a teacher, a friend talking about what we have found in the books we read.

I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. — frank

I agree that eliminating Trump does not eliminate the problem. I don't know if the factions can remain united without him though.

It's not much to do with Trump. He's running with it because it'll work for him. — AmadeusD

It will do for him what he in his incompetency was not able to do in his first term.

Haha, case in bloody point mate. — AmadeusD

? These examples show that he does care to be a dictator. Dictators grab power for their own benefit.

He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.
— Fooloso4

This is a ridiculous statement and patently untrue. I'll leave it there. — AmadeusD

On almost a daily basis he demonstrates that he is unpredictable. He cannot be controlled because he cannot control himself. By all means leave it there.

I think everyone is taking Trump the person way more seriously than he takes himself. — AmadeusD

There is one thing Trump cares about - Trump.

He's muddling through - not planning a decade-long campaign to be dictator. — AmadeusD

What do you make of Project 2025?

He doesn't care enough. — AmadeusD

Of course he does! He is driven by his ego. He wants unquestioned loyalty. He courts strong-man leaders of other countries. He uses the dictatorial tactics of fear, disinformation, and scapegoating.

... he is clearly not the psychopathic mastermind ... — AmadeusD

This is half true. He is not a mastermind. He has other people doing the thinking for him.

If anything, he is being co-opted for his charisma for genuinely either malicious, or delusional politicians behind him — AmadeusD

He is not. There are some who use his popularity and think they can use him for their own ends, but this is a mistake. He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.

I think it very much depends on the reader and which books they choose to read. There is an art to writing and an art to reading. Reading can be a way of thinking. When that is the case, although the book has already been written, what is said, although situated in time, need not be limited to that time. The reader is not looking backward but inward. While the book does not change the reader can, and in that way the book changes for that reader. The book that was cast aside in my youth remains ready for when I am ready for it.

According to Ivanhoe and Van Norden (Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy) the term 'nature', xing, as it is used by thinkers of the classical period, is what is paradigmatic of a living thing. Those tendencies that are more likely to be realized in a healthy environment. Confucius emphasized the sacred practices, a set of rites or rituals,li through which the lost golden age could be rebuilt.

In the golden age (c. 1045-771 B.C.E) the early Zhou rulers established and maintained a special relation with Heaven, tian. Without getting into the concept of tian for Confucius or others, there is right practice and wrong practice. Practice in accord with Heaven and practice contrary to it. Humans who are virtuous, ren, have realized or perfected their nature.

From the cited article:

“What has enabled the scientific study of death,” he continues, “is that brain cells do not become irreversibly damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation when the heart stops. Instead, they ‘die’ over hours of time. This is allowing scientists to objectively study the physiological and mental events that occur in relation to death”.

This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch.

I fixed his statement:

We’ll have it fixed so good you won't be able to vote. — Trump

Aristotle was writing about humans. If he had known of a devil species, perhaps he would have written about it. — Leontiskos

Aristotle is not simply writing about humans. He wants to teach them. Would he be able to teach a devil species? I assume such a species would not care or pay any attention to ethics, except perhaps to attempt to undermine it.

I'm puzzling over the word 'god'. — Amity

As well you should be! We should keep in mind that Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Much of what Plato has Socrates say in the dialogues reflects what was common opinion. We are not likely to find much that overtly goes against those beliefs.

Translators are not always careful to distinguish the terms 'gods', 'god' and 'a god'. Monotheistic assumptions seem to inform some translations as well as some readers' interpretation. The singular 'god' appears in a few places in the Phaedrus. One notable place:

... without seeing or properly understanding god, we do imagine some living creature possessing a soul and possessing a body which are conjoined for all time. Well, let these matters be arranged and described in whatever manner is pleasing to god ... (246c-d, Horan translation)

Why is the singular used here surrounded by multiple uses of the plural? Perhaps this can be addressed in terms of the famous Socratic "what is X?" questions. "Properly understanding" God means to be able to say what god is. Apparently, this is, according to this passage, something we are unable to do.

Added: As with other 'what is' questions he is looking for what all that is called 'god' has in common and distinguishes it from all else.

Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. — Echarmion

To borrow from Homer: Trump clothes himself in shamelessness.

The demagogue expresses the society’s zeitgeist.

I think this is somewhat misleading. The demagogue taps into the dissatisfaction of some portion of society and promises to fix things. In part he does this by setting up a scapegoat. Eliminate the scapegoat and you eliminate the problem.

Unfortunately, and I think inadvertently, Hedges contributes to the problem when he says such things as:

Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.

Is there a generally agreed upon cause of deindustrialization? Has it been clearly shown that Biden and the Democratic party are responsible? Why does Hedges blame the Democrats?

Elsewhere he says:

What you really got was the transformation of the Democratic party into the Republican party.

When he blames democrats for becoming republicans I take it he is doing two things. The first is historical analysis. The second is to tell democrats that they have lost their way and need to reorient themselves. But things might look quite different when he places the blame at the feet of the Democratic party. This might be taken and used as a sound bite endorsement of the Republicans.

Trump is not only part of the establishment, he is the Republican wing of the establishment. The Republican Party is Trump. Trump is the Republican Party. Any daylight between then has vanished.

was Socrates literate? — isomorph

In the Phaedo he is putting some of Aesop's writings to verse. It is possible that he was working from memory from what he heard from others reading Aesop aloud, but there is no indication, as far as I am aware, that anyone else was writing down the verses he made for him.

Perhaps more importantly, he was literate in the sense of being able to discuss the writings of others.

There is no 'the good' in Aristotelian ethics and, consequently, there is no universal good which all species are geared towards. — Bob Ross

I will defer to Joe Sachs, a leading scholar and translator of Aristotle:

Aristotle asks about the way the various meanings of the good are organized, but he immediately drops the question, as being more at home in another sort of philosophic inquiry. (1096b, 26-32) It is widely claimed that Aristotle says there is no good itself, or any other form at all of the sort spoken of in Plato's dialogues. This is a misreading of any text of Aristotle to which it is referred. Here in the study of ethics it is a failure to see that the idea of the good is not rejected simply, but only held off as a question that does not arise as first for us. Aristotle praises Plato for understanding that philosophy does not argue from first principles but toward them.(1095a, 31-3)

("Three Little Words")

What Aristotle says in the passage cited from Nicomachean Ethics is:

Perhaps however this question must be dismissed for the present, since a detailed investigation of it belongs more properly to another branch of philosophy. And likewise with the Idea of the Good; for even if the goodness predicated of various in common really is a unity or something existing separately and absolute, it clearly will not be practicable or attainable by man; but the Good which we are now seeking is a good within human reach.

As previous pointed out and regarded by you as not relevant is that ethics is about the human good. The good for nature as a whole transcends the human good or the good of any other species. Its energeia and entelecheia, its "being at work" and "being at work staying itself" are for the sake of itself. It is its own arche and telos. Its own source or beginning and its own end or purpose. Whatever aims for some end or purpose aims for some good.

What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got... — Shawn

It is not at all clear that Bernie would have won. He is a "socialist" and this scares lots of voters. To them the qualification 'democratic' socialist does not matter. Although Clinton won the popular vote, the states in which she lost are the states that are strongly opposed to socialism.

The irony is that many of the same people who oppose socialism because they equate it with government control are if favor of autocracy. The power of the demagogue to persuade the people!

Thank for that. A powerful, factual based ad. I don't know how effective it would be today. The Trumpsters just don't care. They believe he is their savior and either overlook his faults or think it is all liberal lies. Those who are less fanatical may regard it as a trade-off they are willing to accept. Perhaps there are still enough voters who have not made up their mind who might be swayed.

There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected. — BC

This seems so obvious that should not need to be said ... but evidently and unfortunately it does.

This is contrary to Aristotle's understanding of nature

How so? — Bob Ross

The whole of nature and each organism in the hierarchical order of species works toward maintaining that order according to its nature. But it is not just any order, it has as its end, according to Aristotle, the good. A species whose sole purpose is to cause harm can play no role in this well ordered whole.

It's just incomplete. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I agree.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris? — Shawn

I don't know if she would be the best candidate in terms of electability or capability but she is certainly preferable to Orange Jesus.

The problem as I see it is that his arguments (if they can be called that) for rejecting private rule following don't seem to limit the problem to private rule following. They apply equally to public rule following. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't understand the shift from the problem private rule following to public rule following.

"from whence rules? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the answer is one that you seem to reject - convention. Given our species nature the rules from one group to another will have much in common based on our needs and characteristics as a species.

Presumably, if nature "follows rules" it is in a way that is at best analogous to how we follow them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One fundamental difference is that we can choose to follow certain rules or not.

Why do disparate cultures that developed in relative isolation often develop similar rules? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Speaking generally, as a social species it is likely that there are norms of living together that promote the success of the group. These can be codified, but I do not think they are the result of prior agreement between members of the group. Other social species have their own rules and norms.

It is a species that, as per its nature, can only achieve a deep and persistent sense of happiness, flourishing, and well-being by committing egregious acts on other species (e.g., torture, abuse, mass genocide, etc.). — Bob Ross

This is contrary to Aristotle's understanding of nature. Since the thread is based on your claim that:

Aristotle is avoiding this glaring issue — Bob Ross

you should not be avoiding what he says about nature and telos. for when they are taken into account there is no glaring issue that he is avoiding. For Aristotle the nature and telos of a species is in accord with the whole of nature.

Per Wittgenstein, they can't be sure that they ever understand a rule. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I do not think he is a skeptic with regard to rule following. There is, for example, a right way of following the rules of addition. If someone does not add correctly they are corrected. If someone makes a move in chess that violates the rules they are corrected. It does not matter what they might or might not understand as long as what they do follows the established rules. But it would be quite odd if someone did not understand the rules and yet consistently acted in accordance with them.

5.1361 The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present. Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus.

There is a difference between human beings acting in compliance with established rules and the question of whether nature obeys rules. It makes sense to say that if someone does not follow the rules of a game she may be playing a different game, but does it make sense to say that if the sun does not rise tomorrow it is playing a different game?

Hence he could never really pin down rules outside of "custom," which in turn leaves them floating free from the world in an infinite sea of "possible rules." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are you claiming that there are transcendent, fixed, eternal laws that human beings should follow that Wittgenstein fails to account for? One possibility might be prohibitions against killing, but although I would not say that there is an infinite sea of possible rules regarding killing, distinctions are made with regard to such things as species, war, self-defense, and euthanasia, and on which side one comes down on has not been adequately determined. None of this should be placed at the feet of Wittgenstein.

They're discussed in terms of speech acts and gesturing towards new ways of seeing though, right? There's little psychology in it. Or to put it better, the only things he seems interested in are those elements of perception which are mediated by not just involving acts of speech. The eye under the aspect of language. — fdrake

I think that he is trying to clear away conceptual misunderstanding that stand in the way of seeing. In the Tractatus seeing/showing is clearly distinguished from saying/propositional thinking. In his later works the distinction is blurred. What we say can influence what we see and what we see can influence what we say. His talk of possibilities is about new ways of thinking and seeing:

… our investigation is directed not towards phenomena, but rather, as one might say, towards the ‘possibilities’ of phenomena.

(PI 90)

The name “philosophy” might also be given to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions.

(PI 126)

The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something a because it is always before one’s eyes.) The real foundations of their inquiry do not strike people at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck them. And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful.

(129)

You can use Wittgenstein's ideas as a line in the sand between philosophical and non-philosophical use of thought - what counts as bewitched and right thinking. — fdrake

I agree. It can be used as a blunt instrument or where it is an inappropriate instrument, but we can and should consider whether the expectations and demands put on terms is appropriate. This leaves unaddressed the problem whether "ordinary everyday language" can lead to bewitchment as well.

More broadly, I think the emphasis on language can lead us to overlook something fundamental to Wittgenstein, namely, the distinction and connection between saying and showing or seeing, which remains throughout his writings, as can be seen it his discussions of such things as seeing aspects, aspect blindness, seeing-as, and seeing connections.

We find certain things about seeing puzzling, because we do not find the whole business of seeing puzzling enough.

(Philosophy of Psychology - A Fragment. [aka Part II of Philosophical Investigations] 251)

The concept of an aspect is related to the concept of imagination.
In other words, the concept ‘Now I see it as . . .’ is related to ‘Now I am imagining that’.
Doesn’t it take imagination to hear something as a variation on a
particular theme? And yet one does perceive something in so hearing it.

(254)

Seeing an aspect and imagining are subject to the will. There is
such an order as “Imagine this!”, and also, “Now see the figure like
this!”; but not “Now see this leaf green!”.

(256)

The question now arises: Could there be human beings lacking the ability to see something as something a and what would that be like?
What sort of consequences would it have? —– Would this defect be comparable to colour-blindness, or to not having absolute pitch? a We will call it “aspect-blindness” a and will now consider what might be meant by this. (A conceptual investigation.)

(257)

Aspect-blindness will be akin to the lack of a ‘musical ear’.

260)

The importance of this concept lies in the connection between the concepts of seeing an aspect and of experiencing the meaning of a word. For we want to ask, “What would someone be missing if he did not experience the meaning of a word?

(261)

That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario. — Echarmion

It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction.

the Republican agenda going forward will be to put Trump allies in all corners of the civil service including the Pentagon so the next time Trump wants help, nobody is pushing back. There won't be a coup. — frank

A quiet bloodless coup? Or a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the world works and our role in it? Or perhaps the movement of popular public opinion that can change with the wind?

If it's a misrepresentation it's not Grayling's, since he is commenting on efforts by some "Wittgensteinians, to clarify what Wittgenstein's philosophy entails." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps, but as I said it is a matter of:

... the enterprise of creating such problems for how Wittgenstein is read — Fooloso4

The problem remains and he is a part of it. We cannot exclude what Wittgenstein said from the problems other manufacture from what he said.

My personal opinion is that Wittgenstein's work is too vague to decide this issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would include Plato and Aristotle, as evidenced by the continued and varied amount of work on them.

As he says in the preface to PI:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own.

It could, of course, be argued that this is what those who generate these problems are doing. There is, however, a difference between creating pseudo-problems and the problems of thinking that Wittgenstein is addressing. Although he has his doubts as to what he will accomplish

in the darkness of this time

he holds to the hope that his work might:

bring light into one brain or another

To this end, much of what he does is to clear away what occludes our ability to see.

Wittgenstein's concept of "forms of life" in his later philosophy is infamously vague, despite doing a lot of heavy lifting. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Despite the theories about forms of life, I do not think it is vague unless one treats it as a theory. He has no theory about forms of life, he is simply pointing beyond language as something existing in and of itself to our being in the world and all that entails conceptually and practically. The boundaries between one way of life and another or one practice and another are not fixed and immutable.

With regard to "cognitive relativism", Grayling says:

In effect this means that the concepts in question are not concepts of truth and the rest, as we usually wish to understand them, but concepts of opinion and belief.

Unless some "tribe" (a favorite thought example of Wittgenstein) is in possession of the truth itself and the rest itself, we are dealing with opinions and beliefs held at that time and place to be true. The truth is, we are not in possession of the whole of the immutable truth. Throughout history human beings have held things to be true that turn out not to be. This is not something to be solves by attacks on the truth of relativism so understood.

We could debate whether Wittgenstein really was such a relativist. What I wanted to point out though is that, if he does embrace the more relativistic reading, he essentially undermines his entire later philosophy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

On my reading, what Grayling is doing is creating problems that do not exist in Wittgenstein's work. He is, of course, not alone in the enterprise of creating such problems for how Wittgenstein is read and subsequently discussed and written about. If Grayling is wrong, and I think he is, then the only thing that is undermined is what follows from this false picture.

What is the point? If we are to exclude the question of whether Grayling misrepresents Wittgenstein then are we to take seriously other misrepresentations however misguided they may be? Wittgenstein drops out of the picture.

Although I was not included in your illustrious list I will comment anyway.

I agree with him regarding "democracy by the polls", but the concern about Biden's current abilities is not simply a matter of what the polls say. I also agree with his criticism of the press, but the press plays a less significant role when a propaganda machine has a significant portion of the population believing that what it tells them is the news and the truth. Lichtman's track record on prediction election outcomes is impressive but I am not confident that Biden will win or that the attempt to get him to step down is self-destructive.

Based on his evaluation of this administration's performance his prediction might have been right up until the debate, Biden's past performance does not matter if he is no longer capable of performing as well as he once did.