If you want to delegate your responsibilities to your fellow human beings to someone else, go for it. — NOS4A2

No, you’re confused. I’m the one voluntarily paying for these programs so that other people who can’t work can get something to eat. You’d deny them these programs because you’re an apologist for plutocracy. But thankfully you’re on an island somewhere, so it doesn’t matter.

But I don’t think that favoring a piece of legislation—in other words sitting around and doing nothing—is any sign that you’re helping anyone but yourself. — NOS4A2

Nice projection.

Not nothing: paying taxes. Which hardly helps me. Some of that goes to things like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That helps a lot of people indeed — far more than I could ever help individually.

On the other hand, the onus is on the person crying about paying taxes and about state programs to be going out of their way to help others. Show all us suckers how it’s really done in a libertarian paradise. So until I see YOU out there feeding people or housing them, take your bullshit elsewhere.

In any case, anyone paying taxes does so voluntarily. Anyone working for a wage — likewise, voluntary. Never mind the nuances. Those who truly don’t want to do either have alternatives: leave the country or become a farmer (or just not be poor), respectively.

I think I get it. I hope I’m made an honorary libertarian.

So you WOULD deny them the means. Got it. Apparently paying taxes is worse than poor children and the disabled starving. Cool.

Your sick worldview never fails to deliver. :clap:

Until I see you feeding any of those people I will never deny them any means to acquire food. You would. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Yes, I’m often in the habit of pulling babies away from their mothers.

I wonder of the two of us, who is in favor of food assistance programs and who isn’t? :chin:

Oh well, guess that doesn’t count as “means.”

All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2

Yeah, so I guess babies, the disabled, children, the elderly, etc., better get off their asses.

his money taken from him without his permission, — NOS4A2

Oh no, WITH permission. It’s totally voluntary. Just like working for a corporation.

For those who don’t want to obey laws they don’t like— such as paying taxes — they have the same choice a person who doesn’t want to be exploited by an owner has: don’t do it! Just move to a place where they don’t tax, or don’t tax as much.

Seems simple enough to me.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2

The employee is forced to work, or else he doesn’t eat. Guess one is voluntary and the other isn’t though.

Keep shilling for corporate America buddy. You’re doing a great job.

If you want to call voluntary activity between consenting parties “slavery”, be my guest. — NOS4A2

So if a child of 10 wants to work, it ceases to be child labor. If a person voluntarily becomes a slave (as has happened throughout history), it’s no longer slavery.

Cool. So, again, you don’t really give a shit about “taking the fruits of another’s labor.” You’re fine with it, provided it’s “voluntary” (wink wink).

Unfortunately, the use of “voluntary” is complete garbage.

not the voluntary activity between consenting parties. — NOS4A2

So slavery and child labor is fine, as long as it’s done voluntarily. Got it.

Laughable, isn’t it? This coming from the same guy in favor of child labor. “What about the kid who wants to work?”

Apparently it’s not just consenting adults. It’s whatever corporate America wants.

So it has nothing to do with principle. But we knew that already. Which is why your claim against slavery is absurd as well. What of the people who wanted to be slaves? Who are you to interfere with an individual’s freedom?

When it comes to the demands of capital or the prerogatives of the right kind of Americans, Republicans believe, absolutely, in the light touch of a “small” government that stays out of the way. But when it comes to Americans deemed deviant for their poverty or their transgressions against a traditional code of patriarchal morality, Republicans believe, just as fervently, that the only answer is the heaviest and most meddlesome hand of the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/opinion/republicans-abortion-guns-big-government.html

Reminds me of someone.

So much for someone’s “fruits.”

Any one watch “Extrapolations” on AppleTV? It took me three times to finish the first episode. Tons of good actors, and it’s about climate change — but man, so far it suuuucccckkkkks.

It’s wrong to take fruits of someone’s labor — NOS4A2

Which happens to an extreme degree in corporate America, the “private sector.” Oddly, we never hear you railing against that. It always works out somehow that this kind of exploitation is perfectly justified. :chin:

So you’re just reiterating that you’re against states and laws. Brilliant. :ok:

Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

Someone who refuses to obey speed limits gets thrown in prison too.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there as well.

In which case, all you’re saying is: if you break ANY law egregiously and repeatedly, you’ll perhaps be convicted and thrown in prison. Yeah, no shit. So should we eradicate laws now too? Or just tax laws?

Let’s start with property laws.

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

No they don’t. Stop with the theatrics just to serve your confused libertarianism. (But nice to see you’ve moved on from “literal gun to your head” to a more nuanced view.)

You can be “thrown in prison” for speeding and jaywalking too, or any number of other things that are against the law of the land. But we never say that. Let’s not dramatize taxes.

The reality is that throwing someone in jail for taxes can occur, but is rare. What usually happens is that penalties are accrued and, if one cannot prove a reasonable reason for not paying, liens and levies can be imposed. That takes a decent amount of time. The charges are usually for fraud anyway.

https://www.levytaxhelp.com/can-the-irs-really-send-me-to-jail-for-unpaid-taxes/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20IRS%20cannot,failing%20to%20pay%20your%20taxes.

Perhaps the dream is to go back to the articles of confederation. That worked out wonderfully.

Before getting too worked up, just remember that this entire “philosophy” is regurgitated propaganda from the ruling class that says the state is enemy #1. Meanwhile we have 40 years of “small government” policy results all around us, to really see what it all comes to.

“But that’s not true capitalism,” of course. Not TRUE free markets, not REALLY what was meant. China and the USSR, however, are exactly the embodiment of communism.

And on and on we go.

So the way out: forget the “ideas” of these people— it’s just pure dogmatism, in the same sense as creationists. Rather, if you need to prove to yourself that their thinking is completely irrational, look at specifics. See what they think of gun regulations, of social security, of stock buybacks, of climate change, of externalities generally, of these abortion bans, of union busting.

Low and behold, it’ll align exactly with whatever benefits the plutocrats. (In the creationists case, it’ll align with whatever proves the Bible is literal: Noah’s flood is responsible for the fossil record, carbon dating is all wrong because the earth is 6,000 years old, etc.)

My point is: don’t expect a real argument. The ideology will shift as needed. Like playing whac-a-mole.

In the US, it seems more likely you'd be gunned down in a school shooting. — jorndoe

:blush: :up:

Indeed. But that’s not a gun killing you — it’s freedom.

Those whining about taxes never whine about corporate exploitation. Why? It’s all justified by the pathetic “working for a company is voluntary.”

Well, living in a society is voluntary too. You can leave the country if you don’t like how its run or truly don’t like having to pay for a service you may not use. You know, just like you can “leave the company” if you don’t like their policies.

If these so-called individualists had any integrity whatsoever, the first thing they’d be attacking is private tyrannies. But like well trained dogs, they defend them to the bitter end.

Again, all of this comes out of the arguments in favor of slavery. And it leads to decisions like voting for Donald Trump, siding with gun manufacturers over children’s lives, extreme abortion restrictions, etc. In other words: it’s hifalutin bullshit to justify a very clear agenda.

Don’t look for consistency.

So thinking taxes are taken at “literal gun point” is calling a spade, eh?

:up:

@Christoffer

A good example is the constant whining about taxes. — Mikie

….

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. — Tzeentch

Case in point.

Yeah, like I said, individualism is a pretty stupid religious belief even without it being used as a veil for plutocrats. Mostly just a cover for extreme selfishness. A good example is the constant whining about taxes.

What it really boils down to is a rejection of the idea of democracy and a denial of human beings as social creatures. And this is why those who profess to care about “individual rights” always end up defending corporations, billionaires, Republicans, Donald Trump, neoliberalism, etc. Literally on the wrong side of ANY issue. You name it: abortion, drugs, education, voting rights…

Another important aspect is that these ideas basically grew out of the desire to own and keep slaves.

When a set of beliefs lead to such absurd and embarrassing outcomes, trying to engage it rationally is as productive as talking to a creationist about science.

And we've also seen somewhat of a pure individualistic society through the neoliberalism movement in the 80s. Most of the Millennial generation has been formed as individualists and many of the problems today are the result of individualism, even though we've not seen a nation embracing it fully, since that would almost be anarchistic. — Christoffer

Individualism is perhaps the biggest myth and scam of modern times. Philosophically dubious at best, ignores one of human beings’ most basic traits (social creatures), accepts the illusion of “self” as a kind of irreducible entity a la the atom, and is an outgrowth of some of the worst parts of Western culture.

All that aside, the most important point is that this kind of self-worshipping fundamentalism has been adopted and used by the ruling class, since at least Von Mises and Hayek in modern times, culminating in Friedman and, to a less serious degree, Ayn Rand. Much like Christians who want to justify what they want, they cherry-pick the ideas, these ideas become the ruling ideas, and provide cover and justification for plutocracy.

We see the results of neoliberal policies, as you rightly point out. By almost every measure, the results have been egregious — except for the ruling class, to which 50 trillion dollars have been transferred over 40 years. All in the name of individualism: small government, “government is the problem,” and other “libertarian” (read: unwitting plutocrat apologists) slogans.

And when this undeniable wealth inequality, monopolization, failure of the “free markets” (another useful fantasy), financialization, bailouts, etc., is pointed out — what’s blamed? The “state,” of course.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous.

Supposed communist countries tend to become something else, something that (to me anyway) is not what the philosophers envisioned. — jorndoe

Yes, of course. There is no pure, official statement of communism — so it’s hard to talk about. But if we take worker control of the workplace, the means of production in workers hands — then yes, USSR and China are very different indeed. But there are different stands. Some statist, some anti-statist.

So it goes for capitalism too, incidentally. What we see today in our neoliberal era is pretty far from anything in, say, Adam Smith.

because there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations. — Tzeentch

Yet so many still defend capitalism. Responsible for more deaths and brutality than imaginable.

Great questions so far guys.

Just FYI, I will be doing almost no editing beyond maybe correcting some typos or some grammar. If there comes a time when I think the question is really unclear, I'll send you a PM and see if you agree, and we can work on re-wording it, but that'll be the extent of my involvement.

Damn Mikie that's a massive catch! Extraordinary. — Manuel

I can hardly believe it myself.

You could copy this exact post, or whatever you think is best. — Manuel

Sounds good. Remind me: did you study under him? Is that why he'll know you?



One question only please.



:blush: Glad it worked out! But I'm a little nervous -- he's 94 years old!

Is there an actual date in June, you would have to get a question in by? — universeness

Good question. That hasn't been determined yet. He's especially busy right now, so we agreed on June without an exact date. I'll send him an e-mail to determine if he's ready, and give everyone here a "last call" for questions as a heads up before sending them along. I imagine that'll be in early June.

So, religion, with its gods and myths, largely replaced philosophy. — Art48

I carve it up a little differently and, admittedly, idiosyncratically. I take philosophy to mean a kind of thinking, defined by its questions. Religion — at least taken in a broad sense to include things like beliefs, faith, spirituality, a sense of one-ness or unity — therefore overlaps to a large degree. It too asks questions about, for example, the meaning of life, what happens when we die, and so forth. It does differ when it becomes dogmatic and rigid, but I don’t think it controversial to say it’s something like a cousin of philosophy, at least in antiquity.

Starting with a semantics like this, the above statement seems backwards. If anything, I think philosophy was an alternative to animism and the like.

:up:

Both very popular guys. Peterson in my view is a complete charlatan, yet he’s often cited and borderline worshipped by his followers.

I see some parallels with Zizek — but he at least seems more sincere.

For anyone into Hegel, Marx, or Lacan at the very least he can't but be interesting. I think you would be surprised if you dived in. — Baden

I have no reason to, because no one can tell me what he’s working on. But yeah, maybe it’s interesting. Maybe Peterson is interesting too — lots of people seem to be drawn to him as well. But there’s only so much time.

Proudly declaring your ignorance. Not a good look. — Jamal

I’ve heard him giving debates and interviews and lectures. Haven’t read his books, but yes — ignorant of his substance that his followers insist is there, yet never explain or give examples of. Which is exactly what you’re also doing, incidentally. Also not a great look.

Which of his books have you read? — Baden

None by Zizek; I’ve scanned some of Petersons in Target.

He's written dozens of substantially philosophical books. — Baden

He’s written books. I’ve yet to hear one of his followers explain what the substance is.

Jordan Paterson has written lots of books too, incidentally. Likewise, I’ve yet to see anything interesting there.

Regarding Zizek - I am by no means an expert, but it seems to me that he always has different opinions than the rest of the world, — Eugen

I have yet to hear one interesting thing this man has said or done, what work he’s done on anything, and why anyone should care about his thoughts on anything.

Like Paris Hilton, he’s famous for being famous. Has an accent and makes jokes that adolescent boys can understand — fits the image of a hip “philosopher,” so very cool and edgy.

So I guess what I’m saying is: what exactly is his view on consciousness? And why should we care?

“In Being and Time, Being is not something other than time: "Time" is a preliminary name for the truth of Being, and this truth is what prevails as essential in Being and thus is Being itself.”(What is Metaphysics) — Joshs

Woa. I missed this one. Nice quote.

Thanks for those. :up:

Similarly, there is no doubt that the the "definition" of being Heidegger offers is insignificant compared to the "meaning" of being that Heidegger intends to and does articulate. — Arne

True, definition and meaning aren't necessarily the same thing. But this started with:

But as for what being is? Heidegger, as far as I’ve seen, never really says. — Mikie

I never said anything about definition or meaning. So if you're going to now make a sharp distinction between "definition" and "meaning," and claim that the one well-known sentence in the introduction counts as "definition" but says nothing about "meaning," it seems rather odd -- given that I didn't necessarily ask for a definition. I asked what it is.

But OK -- I'm willing to be done with this too. Seems moot now.

was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education — 180 Proof

I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text — 180 Proof

There's bound to be some influence. But how that translates to the text and its question is what I'm interested in. So far no one has presented anything very convincing. Likewise for the post hoc Nazi analyses.

As for reading Catholicism into the text -- what can I say? Seems like that's projection. Heidegger's language takes a lot of time to get used to, and requires serious study. He acknowledges the awkwardness of his writings, incidentally. So it's very easy to read anything you want into the text, if so inclined. I could probably come up with an elaborate explanation of the text as being related to Star Wars somehow -- being = the force, the Jedi are authentic humans, etc. etc.

I don't either. It was meant to be suggestive. It is not something I have looked into. — Fooloso4

:up:

Only a god can save us.

I always interpreted this in the context of what Heidegger writes about the Greeks and their gods. So yes, in a way I largely agree: I think our entire culture has to change, right down to our religious beliefs. The Greeks "religion" was tied up with Homeric stories, involving lots of gods and heroes, and they had a pretty healthy culture (for a while). I'm with Nietzsche (and Heidegger) on this one: perhaps we need to develop better gods. Perhaps even bringing some of the older ones back.

But that's my interpretation. I can see how one may reasonably think it's a reflection of Heidegger's remaining (subconscious) Catholicism or something like that.

Whether you consider it a "serious" definition is beside the point. — Arne

It's exactly the point. You present this one infamous line as evidence that he does indeed define being. It's extremely weak, for the reasons given above.

How serious you choose to take the definition is up to you. But the definition is consistent with all that follows. — Arne

Yeah, that's true. Like the water to the fish or the light in the room: something in the background, something that gets ignored, overlooked, hidden, "concealed."

It's not that it isn't consistent, it just seems unlikely that this is what Heidegger wants to say about it rather than describing the common (albeit tacit) understanding -- which has its importance as well. Heidegger talks much more about time, presence-at-hand, and aletheia in the writings that follow.

First, I do not understand what you mean when you say it is not necessarily Heidegger's claim. Whose claim is it. — Arne

Ugh, you’re gonna make me pull out B/T aren’t you? :lol:

The prior paragraph he’s talking about how being is prevalently understood, and how it’s therefore not totally unfamiliar to us. It’s the “vague average understanding” of being. He also says that we can’t yet give a clarification of the meaning of being just yet.

In this context, when he refers to being as “that which determines entities as entities,” he may be referring to this average understanding which we are all familiar with. He’s also trying to make clear that being is itself not an entity, although we have to interrogate an entity (us) to learn about it.

In this context, I think it’s much more likely that this sentence wasn’t meant as a serious definition. That would be quite weird, given the entire book is about it. To answer it with a casual aside is unlikely.

since Being and Time is about laying out the structure of being rather than defining being, the definition offered is hardly the final word. Instead, the structure is the final word. — Arne

I don’t buy this idea of structure. He’s quite clear that the question is the meaning of being. Says it over and over again. I’m not sure where he says anything about the “structure of being.”

Because I’m not able to get at an online version right now, I’ll leave you with this photo from my book as evidence:

I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence. — Fooloso4

I don’t recall Heidegger ever talking about, let alone believing in, the notion of providence.

Rather than a supreme being he says that God is the ground of being. — Fooloso4

Yes— Tillich does. Not Heidegger. So I’m still not sure why you’re convinced he sees being as God.

I think the closest we can say about Heidegger’s view of being is that it is very much related to time (in the sense of temporality) and aletheia. But that’s not saying much, of course. So it goes.

I don't think he ever is honest enough to come out and say it. Being is God. — Fooloso4

I don’t see that. He’s pretty clearly un-Christian. He says in a number of places that god as uncreated substance is simply more substance ontology, and that Christians can’t do philosophy almost by definition.

But who knows.