The only positive thing that came out of the last presidential election is that it proved that the electoral system might not be rigged.

Obama made a bunch of idealistic promises too, and delivered nothing. Hilldawg is way more entrenched in the establishment, probably deeper than Obama has ever been. Did you really believe her?

I think, concerning the meaning of life, becoming is more fundamental than being.

I have figured out the equation. The math is quite simple.
Trump=the people fucked over
Clinton=the people fucked over

Perhaps. Btw, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

hence, instantiations of awareness in the form of ego) can only hold presence (i.e., exist, but not necessarily “stand out” … a subtle but metaphysically important clarification of semantics for some) given the presence of change, hence motion—this irrespective of whether the change/motion is physical or mental. That being a given, when impartially appraised, a world of full causal determinism does not logically allow for the possibility of change/motion—this since all relations of efficient causation are within this model perfectly immutable by definition, and because everything is deemed to consist of these perfectly immutable causal relations. Here, then, our experience of being directly contradicts with our theory of a fully casually deterministic being—for our experience entails the presence of change whereas the model of reality entails a perfect changelessness of being. I fully grant that the summation of this argument many be emotively lacking; yet I would challenge anyone to find rational fault with it. — javra

It take it from your terminology, you hold to a few Aristotilean presuppositions.

In layman terms, causality is nullified by immutability, qua. the deterministic model.

The important distinction is, as you say: existing, versus standing out. But I might argue that this standing out is existing, as such. And, if the deterministic model does essentially negate the deciding agent, then, then thing that exists is gone, and what are we left with: the model and irrelevant spectators.

I believe Hitler and Stalin would thrive in the present day American political system.

England, I understand

I would've voted for Hillary. — S

Would've? Why no vote?

(Add. You would have been wrong. But you also would have been wrong to vote for Trump.)

That you "throw away your vote". This idea is the problem. — ssu

Indeed...

You are probably right that a third party needs to gain prominence, beginning at the local level. But I think that is just as likely to occurr as as people, en masse, deciding to vote third party, and getting it elected to president.

But it won't do anything except weaken the chances of the better alternative. — S

What better alternative, Hilldawg? Romney?McCain? Kerry? Gore?

What the US really needs is a parliamentary system.

so I don't have a vote that I could waste. — S

My vote is a boycott against the system. That's why I refuse to vote for a president.

Then it seems we are similar.

you guys — S

Who are you guys, I don't give two shits about them, I'm just making a point concerning self respect

The meaning of life is meaningless...

It can all be summed up into one word: death.

#metoo — Benkei

pound me too

What do you mean?

There is a coherent conceptual distinction between natural and artificial. The latter is usually taken to refer to phenomena which are produced by human artifice.

Human society could be seen to be the interactive elaboration of human artifice, and might be considered to be an artificial phenomenon on that account. — Janus

That's my take. Are humans not able to transcend nature?

I would say that not only can the the individual human being not be "isolated" from the "collective", but the collective cannot be isolated from nature; although it can obviously be useful for developing certain lines of thought to make the distinction between what we think of as natural and what we think of as artificial. Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus

To be clear, I was talking to mr. Harry in terms of degrees of nature, and that society as a natural phenomenon is not incorrect, but it is a lesser degree of natural than the individual.

It's good that you posited that it is impossible to isolate the individual from the collective. But then that brings forward thar classic philosophical debate over which is primary: the individual or collective.

Suppose objectivity is a collectively determined phenomenon, and that the natural sciences are the best tool for determining what is acceptable as fact. What condiderations can we draw from this?

Thank you. You have a nice way of framing it all.

So whether choice has any causal efficacy in relation to the corresponding state of affairs is, I believe, the crux of the freewill debate. Causal determinists presume it doesn't. Those who uphold freewill presume it does. And resolving this via empirical data has at least so far proven futile. — javra

I would add there is also the important debate of whether predetermined factors allow for the existence of the will, and to what degree it is free in relation to those factors.

Each and every moment of our being we are different, thought the same person, and will have been in part predetermined by our former choices in life. Yet at each juncture of choice—part, present, and future—we again engage in being the agency for effects as decisions, or commitments, to future realities, this given two or more alternative means toward the end of resolving our want(s). — javra

The eternal decision. I think this is what makes the willing agent relevent, whether or not its decision manifests into reality. In fact, I would say that when the will does not correspond to any existing state of affairs, it takes on even more importance.

On the other hand, aesthetics can be powerful in delivering meaningful stories or stories with moral messages. — praxis

Aesthetics can indeed function as a powerful tool to relate the ethical. But it can only be indirectly related. That is what religious texts do, and why they appeal to such a broad audience.

... I just finished knowing myself, now I have to clean up

The evidence that it's corrupt is found in the fact that they won't allow 3rd parties in the debate unless they have a certain amount of support. But they are unable to generate that support simply because they are not permitted into the debate.

Its obvious the rules are set up this way to prevent 3rd party candidates from ripping up the Republican and Democratic positions, and exposing them for the frauds they are

Trump won for the same reasons Obama did. The system is shit and people want change. Both brought the appeal of novelty to the table.

Is this a trick? You make a valid point, but if my choice is democrats or Trump? Doesn't seem too difficult. But don't worry, I won't give the democrats any money (if that is what you mean by support). — ZhouBoTong

No, I'm baffled. To undermine your base in the way they did, is about the most shady rat-bastard thing a political party could do. I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote.

The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. — ZhouBoTong

That's too bad. Race and gender are two of the worst criterion I can think of for supporting a candidate. Not that this hasn't been the case the whole time. I'm just saying.

Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change. — Maw

Until they sabotage the next candidate.

Are you factoring in the superdelegate scam?

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/amp/

Definitely! If I walk up to you on the street with a bump of cocaine, and you refuse to take it: automatic prison sentence.

I like your irony, illegal not to do illegal drugs. Lol

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me?

The political clusterfuck is on display above ground. The permanent government cleverly avoids publicity by staying below ground and out of sight. — Bitter Crank

Speak on my brotha

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below: — Maw

The only thing they have to do with each other is that they are my opinions.

And the first sentence assumes that those who are in elected positions actually represent us. From my perspective, I see very few elected officials representing the interest of the electorate.

well. Uh...

I have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office

Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus

The first axiom of philosophy: γνῶθι σεαυτόν

During the Obama era the war machine and surveillance state took no pause in its advance

(Add. In fact, at the the end of the Bush era, they were nothing compared to when Trump took over.)

Oh but you should, indeed, you should argue it

Too bad the Democrats sabotaged Sanders last election

But they have done little to stop the onslaught of either the war machine, or the surveillance state.

Even if the choice has no causal relation to the state of affairs, it marks a resolution for the deciding agent so that the landscape of possibility becomes altered.

Perfect.

I saw the left scrambling for solutions during Bush.

Now it seems like the left is just screaming about its problems. Perhaps it the only way left, a last desperate attempt to oppose a system that keeps promising everything and delivering nothing.

Perhaps it's in the possibility that the choice can reconfigure the causal chain, in effect resetting its succession to a new origin.