Uhhh....yeah. They have. — ssu

No, they haven’t. What I was responding to:

And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. — ssu

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates.

As far as fiscal policy: yea, they passed stimulus bills. Arguing that

stimulus packages etc. […] got the inflation finally going. — ssu

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well.

The effects of stimulus is real, but I agree with economists who say it accounts for about 1% of inflation or so.

does create higher demand, which then creates higher prices. — ssu

Low interest rates create demand too. Cheap borrowed money lead to higher prices.

But this almost completely overlooks supply shocks and corporate choices. This is far more a supply side issue.

True, we can use inflation as an excuse for austerity, for punishing workers and families, etc., which is the most likely outcome. But that’s a political choice.

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already.
— Xtrix
How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around. — ssu

Since the asset bubbles I mentioned were created by the Fed’s monetary policy, it’s no surprise they are bursting now. Stocks have even farther to go to trend, in fact.

So I’m not exactly sure why you’re stating this.

Of course the real issue is political. And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. And blame everybody else: the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, climate change, foreigners, hoarders... you name it!!! — ssu

Politicians aren’t choosing anything. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Fed — which has become more and more hawkish in terms of money. Interest rates have already been raised 1.5% this year alone and will likely continue.

Inflation is largely due to supply chain disruptions. There’s nothing the Fed can do about that. What the Fed can do — and we see happening — is reverse what it caused: the inflation of three key markets: stocks, bonds, and housing. All are bubbles; some were superbubbles (stocks).

These bubbles bursting will have some effect on overall inflation— but, again, will do nothing whatsoever for semiconductor shortages, wheat supply stocks due to war, or oil/gas supply chains.

So, if this principle is right, then supply chain issues would be the proximate cause of inflation, and it seems likely that if supply cannot meet demand, inflation (perhaps not as significant) would still have resulted even if extra money had not been injected, — Janus

I think this is true. Which is why we see inflation internationally.

At the heart of it all, I think, is capitalism. We could easily control inflation by controlling profits, and taking investments out of the hands of the private sector. We’re not supposed to talk about it, but this is partly why China isn’t seeing the same levels of inflation — even though they too are basically a state-capitalist economy, it’s far more regimented than in the Western world.

What we’ll do instead is increase unemployment and stagnate wages and price people out of buying homes, cripple them with greater credit card/mortgage/loan interest rates, etc., to curb spending/demand. This will do nothing about supply chains and nothing about a privatized, profit-driven economy. But what else is new?

But I'm not willing to absolve governments just because an alternative theory exists, while they continue to break economy 101. — Tzeentch

What I’m suggesting is looking at the available data and trying your best to think through what’s going on, temporarily suspending certain beliefs and assumptions and perhaps leaving them behind altogether if there are alternatives that give a better explanation.

It’s not really a theory I’m offering— it’s just looking at the facts. What facts? Well, the topic is inflation. How is inflation measured? Through the consumer price index and personal consumption index (which is what the Fed uses). These are baskets of goods and services, as you know. And when you look at this in detail, the highest rates of inflation are in commodities and products effected by these conditions. Oil is an obvious example. Wheat is another. Disruptions to supply and steady or greater demand will usually lead to higher prices. Add in to this fact the price gouging factor, and it’s not a shocker that we have inflation right now. But just misleading to attribute it all to monetary policy or fiscal policy in terms of an increased monetary base.

The fact that there’s more money in the economy is true. This will have effects. Milton Friedman wasn’t an idiot. Is his claim that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” true, however? I suppose in the sense that it involves money. But otherwise it’s a matter of changes in supply and demand, belief and confidence, price gouging, and — in my view — the socioeconomic system of capitalism.

Worth remembering too that inflation is widespread right now. As you would expect from shocks to oil and wheat supply. Even if printing money was the only (or main) culprit here — what about everywhere else?

Is it more complicated than that? Undoubtedly. — Tzeentch

Agreed.

the cause is obvious. — Tzeentch

Disagreed.

Moronic libertarians, etc. :up:

Though I would abolish those who claim such rights. — NOS4A2

So the plutocrats who own and run the government? Great — agreed.

It's monetary policy of printing billions of dollars causes inflation.

It adopts this monetary policy to accomodate a general fiscal policy of spending too much.

I don't know why you would be asking me for the specifics of that fiscal policy, since it's completely besides the point and you've yet to acknowledge the elephant I just described. — Tzeentch

I have done nothing but discuss that “elephant.” I went over monetary and fiscal policy.

Again, this idea is mostly Friedman’s — and it’s obsolete. Why? One reason is that the Fed increased the money supply in 2009 as well— injecting huge sums into the financial sector, and even buying mortgage backed securities. Did inflation follow? No.

A second reason is because, when you look at inflation in detail — whether the CPI or PCI — a major factor is the ripple effect of supply disruptions from COVID and Ukraine, particularly in energy. That has little to do with the money supply. Inflation is 6% outside of food and energy, and even that is mostly inflated because of the prices of used and new cars — itself a result of lack of supply.

So here we have a few industries, and a handful of companies within these industries, raising prices due to the supposed rising costs of production and labor and/or shortages of commodities like oil/gas and semiconductor components (for computer chips in cars). That’s a choice, as I mentioned before— not an inevitability.

It’s not only profiteering, though. With cars and housing, there’s a supply issue — but also the fact that people are willing to pay up the nose for a house or car. Where did they get this money? From higher wages, stimulus programs, and borrowing (incentived by low interest rates). The government COVID stimulus has now stopped, and the Fed is raising interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

But while it will effect borrowing and spending, it won’t effect profiteering nor supply chain disruptions to commodities, nor the next pandemic, nor the war in Ukraine, nor climate change. And all of these things effect inflation— not just expansionary monetary policy. It will effect what it helped create — stock, bond, and housing bubbles. We already see all three crashing. That’s no surprise. So why has inflation persisted? It’s claimed that they have to go farther, and it takes some time because of lag. I don’t buy this completely.

So, again, this isn’t ignoring the money supply— but as a theory that explains inflation, “everywhere and always,” it’s just no longer true. It assumes things which aren’t true now — but which may have been true in the 70s. It’s at best an incomplete, narrow view. No where near as obvious and simple as you seem to believe.

Lastly, your sense of how the government finances spending is simply wrong. It’s not that they’re financing things by “printing money.” Again, the Fed owns about 15% of debt. That fact should give you pause.

Care to elaborate?
— Xtrix

I'm not going to play this game where you ask for details while ignoring the elephant in the room. — Tzeentch

You said inflation was due to monetary policy. Then you said it’s fiscal policy. Now I ask: what specific fiscal policies are you talking about?

I don’t see how this is ignoring anything.

If you can’t (or don’t want to) support your argument, that’s fine. No need to make things up though.

fiscal policy and monetary policy are connected, and intimately so — Tzeentch

Everything is “connected” in one way or another.

Fiscal and monetary policy are very different animals. You can have one without the other, as was the case after the 2010 midterms.

How did the United States finance decades of endless war and military projects such as the $800 billion you referred to?

Why, by printing money, of course. — Tzeentch

It finances expenditures through revenue. To spend beyond revenue, the government borrows money by issuing treasuries. Treasuries can be bought by anyone, including corporations and foreign countries — and the central bank. The Fed currently holds around 15% of the US debt, which it purchases by printing money.

So again, it’s just not so simple.

We could balance the budget by cutting spending on wars and the military, yes. But the debt isn’t that important.

I’ll tell you where Friedman’s theory holds up fairly well: with major asset classes, like stocks. Since this is where the money flows, you see “inflation” within these classes. Another word for it is “bubbles.” But even here it’s not so cut and dry, because the outcome is largely a matter of corporate choices — buyback choices, CEO remuneration choices, dividend choices, general resource allocation, etc.

Also, even if your generalization were true, it doesn’t explain inflation.

I notice too that you have avoided substantiating anything:

What "fiscal policy" are you referring to, exactly?

And who is "everyone"? Everyone predicted this for "decades"? Since when, the 80s? — Xtrix

Care to elaborate?

Everyone knew it was coming, and everyone knows it's failed government fiscal policy at the root of it. — Tzeentch

Like the $800 billion spent on defense contracts every year? That spending? What "fiscal policy" are you referring to, exactly?

And who is "everyone"? Everyone predicted this for "decades"? Since when, the 80s?

It's helpful to give some substance to generalities. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe some trope about the national debt?

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. [...] Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have.
— Xtrix

Indeed, we have markets that are to a great degree controlled by governments, which turn them neither rational nor efficient. — Tzeentch

No, we have markets that have been deregulated for the last 40 years, largely using the ideas of Friedman as justification. This is the neoliberal era. To turn around and still blame the government is rich, when they were acting in accordance with the bogus ideas of "free markets."

(1) "Government is the problem" -- slogan of the 80s.
(2) Government deregulates for 40 years. Housing crash, recession, real wages decreases, skyrocketing wealth inequality ensue.
(3) "See, we told you government was the problem!"

Very nice, circular story.

Likely they use the same line of argument as you do, arguing that theories that put the blame on government are "now obsolete and things are more complicated". Please. — Tzeentch

I didn't say the blame on government is obsolete, I said Friedman's theories are now obsolete. Specifically the one you echoed:

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency.
— Tzeentch

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. — Xtrix

That "inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency" is obsolete. Your claim -- and his -- is not about fiscal policy, it's about monetary policy. The Fed is in charge of monetary policy. The legislature -- the US Congress -- is in charge of fiscal policy.

Let's at least be clear. As I said earlier, if you want to argue that fiscal policy is the true culprit -- as you now seem to be doing -- then that's a different discussion.

So far you've given no convincing support for this claim either.

Right, you're asking for systemic change then, because companies are no social organisations but specifically set up to make profit. — ChatteringMonkey

Make profit for whom? According to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, it's no longer only the shareholders. True, that's just empty rhetoric to appease the angry rabble while they take actions that are the complete opposite of what's stated. But the point stands. The belief that corporations exist to make profit, and profit for shareholders, is a belief.

In fact, corporations can exist for any kind of reason. There are non-profit corporations. There are co-op corporations. There are corporations that distribute profits in ways that were more akin to the 1950s and 60s when real wages kept up with productivity.

Is changing that belief "systemic change"? Maybe; changing the policies that have been implemented on the basis of this belief certainly would be systemic. Can be done in a heartbeat. Other nations have, and so can we. But since the plutocracy/corporate sector owns "our" government, the chances are slim indeed.

In the current set-up one would expect corporations to try and keep their profit margin, right? I mean, I certainly would be surprised if corporations all of a sudden would collectively and voluntarily decide to absorb the cost themselves. — ChatteringMonkey

The fact that we assume or expect this is partly the problem. It means we, the population, have subscribed to the bullshit ideas of corporate America as well. In reality, there's no justifiable reason for this behavior beyond pure, unadulterated greed -- and, of course, class warfare. The rest is a useful story to tell oneself and others.

And I will say, I doubt all corporations could absorb the increase in cost all by themselves. Some, the bigger ones probably could, other ones I'm not so sure. — ChatteringMonkey

This only makes sense if the costs were so great that they were no longer profitable. But even in that case, you can borrow and cut other costs -- like the huge salaries of executives or expansion plans. Once all that has been tried, yes perhaps you need to shut down factories/stores or let some of your people go. But that's a long way to travel.

Mostly what I see is record profits. For those without record profits, the usual happens: they enrich themselves to the bitter end, then file for bankruptcy while giving themselves huge bonuses.

The owners will always come out on top. Bet the house on it.

I think you have in the options many important issues as options lacking in the OP. — ssu

I really don't know what this means.

Higher interest rates isn't quantitative tightening, Quantitative easing was double talk for money printing. — ssu

I don't know what this means either. Quantitative tightening is the opposite of easing. That means the Fed is beginning to lower mortgage-backed securities and debt on their balance sheet. That was indeed increasing the money supply. The opposite (QT) will decrease the money supply.

And the way to handle this, would be higher interest rates. The Paul Volcker response. — ssu

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already. That's obvious. And there's a ways to go -- stocks, for example, are still not at trend. The S&P 500's trend line is about 2500, and it's currently at 3688. Still overpriced even after dropping 20% from it's high of 4600 in December.

What's not obvious -- and what the Fed cannot control -- is what corporations choose to do. As I said earlier, we're in a time of record profits. Major energy and food companies could choose to keep costs lower, but they aren't. Why?

It's a choice. And that choice has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Fed does, and so it will not have the effect they want. All it will do, again, is burst the stock/bond/housing bubble they helped create.

Corporate profits will remain intact for a while, because any cost will be passed on to consumers and labor through increased prices and major layoffs. That's the choice of the private sector. So inflation will continue. But that can only go on so long. Once that stops, either because of a backlash from consumers/labor or, less probable, government intervention (due to mass public pressure to act), we'll see prices stabilize. But they'll be a lot of pain in the meantime, and that pain will be felt disproportionately on the middle and working classes -- as always.

COVID supply disruptions, the "great resignation"/union organizing/wage increases, and the Ukraine war are all important. But again, the CHOICE by corporate boardrooms to have others pay for the greater costs is just that, a choice. This is the heart of the problem. It's hard to take pity on companies when they're posting record profits and engaging in record levels of share repurchases all while crying about increased production costs.

At what point do we hold the corporate sector accountable?

Energy crisis, making basically everything more expensive globally as it is at the base of the entire economy. — ChatteringMonkey

Sure, but when profits are so high it's worth asking whether or not these corporations can absorb the cost. Turns out they could -- I see no reason why they can't, or no good reason. Rather, they raise prices -- which is passing the extra cost onto others. Why should this be ignored? It's glaringly obvious this is just rampant greed. But it's just taken as the way of the world, as if a natural law. It isn't and never has been. It's a choice.

It could be regulated, as it was in the past. But we're still in the neoliberal era, alas.

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency. — Tzeentch

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. Even the Fed acknowledges this. It's not totally irrelevant, but just doesn't have the explanatory power it was once believed to have. Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have. This is demonstrated by what I said above about the corporate-level decision to absorb labor/production costs (meaning subtracting the extra costs from the record profits) or pass the cost on to consumers by raising product prices. That decision, made by shareholder-elected board members and the CEO (whose compensation largely consists of shares), has nothing whatever to do with the money supply.

When there is out-of-control inflation, it is because central banks are printing too much money. — Tzeentch

They were printing a massive amount in 2008/2009 as well, even instituting QE for the first time. We didn't have inflation after that -- unless you count stock prices, of course (seen in the longest bull market ever).

Because it's an easy, short-term way for governments to get more money to spend on all its hobby projects, and it makes the public carry the cost (inflation is literally a hidden tax). — Tzeentch

This is more parroting of Milton Friedman, unfortunately. It just isn't supported by evidence.

QE, the buying of corporate debt, and lowing the FFR all benefit the banks and the corporations that were failing and threatening to bring down the economy. So monetary policy is now generally a safety net for the financial sector. That has little to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy. If you're arguing that fiscal policy is what accounts for inflation, that's a different line.

Besides this, the public needs to understand that there is no such thing as free money, and they need to stop demanding it from their governments through the voting process, because this is part of what incentivizes governments to make unaffordable, unrealistic promises that can only be fulfilled through printing money. — Tzeentch

Except that this is nonsense. There's plenty of money, plenty of resources. The problem is that it goes to fewer and fewer hands. Making the sweeping statement of "government spending" being the issue reflects a favorite political narrative, but nothing more. Certainly not the data.

But I agree, in part -- there should be less government spending in some areas. For example, the $800 billion dollars we spend annually on weapons manufacturers. Good place to cut spending.

QE is definitely a contributor, we've had years of asset inflation already — Benkei

I think the Fed -- monetary policy -- is responsible for the bubbles in the major asset class: stocks, bonds, housing, and somewhat in commodities. The re-implementation of QE, lowing the federal funds rate to near zero and, uniquely in 2020, buying corporate debt, was due to COVID. I don't necessarily fault the Fed for this. But it continued for far longer than it needed to.

Also, these policies really do nothing but help the financial sector. All of the money goes through private banks, and the greater borrowing that took place was largely spent not on raising wages, research/development, etc., but on stock buybacks. Record levels. Between this and dividends, most of the money was basically channeled to shareholders. And, as we know, the people who own the stocks/assets are a minority, with the "top 1% of Americans having a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.)".

With inflation, I think it's striking that the companies raising their prices (energy companies, food companies, meat producers, etc) are also posting huge profits. So while worker wages have increased, they've used "inflation" as a story to raise their prices to make up for labor costs/supply cost, passing the cost on to consumers rather than absorbing that cost themselves. So, for example, instead of taking the 5% extra labor costs and 4% in extra production costs out of net earnings, they raise prices 9% (or more) and maintain the same level of profits as before (and then some). I think this explanation accounts for most of the inflation we are currently seeing -- far more than simply the "money supply," as some argue.

Most of it is caused by state intervention. — NOS4A2

State intervention in the service of plutocrats.

Your solution: abolish or minimize state intervention; keep the plutocrats.

My solution: abolish or minimize plutocracy. Keep and strengthen democracy.

True — I should have added QE/expansionary monetary policy.

Has anyone read The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era?

I don’t know this Gary Gerstle dude. Thinking of picking it up.

So, arguably, the Ukraine conflict is a logical, and entirely predictable, consequence of US-NATO expansion and meddling in other nations’ affairs. — Apollodorus

views shouldn’t be uncritically dismissed on a philosophy forum. — Apollodorus

Not only don’t I “dismiss” them, I hold them.

One can’t read everything in such a large thread. But I suggest you go back and read anything I’ve written. To argue I’m in the “pro-NATO” camp is untrue, and lazy.

Notice I’m not dismissing you as “pro-Putin.” That would be equally childish. I take issue with your claim that Russia’s actions were legitimate.

Proves nothing more than you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’m not sure why I was tagged in this response, since nothing I said was addressed. So I’ll repeat what I said, in case you want another chance to do so: to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate is absurd.

To do so also undermines the fact of the very real and very immoral role the US (and, therefore, NATO) has played in this crime.

Fact is, Russia’s demands were absolutely clear and IMO legitimate: — Apollodorus

It strains credulity to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate.

They’re not legitimate nor moral, nor intelligent for that matter. This was and is a stupid, immoral, illegitimate move on Russia’s part. Regardless of pretext— which every person or state will give to justify their crimes.

I share your view that the West (the US) has greatly contributed to this war. But to go as far as to claim Russian legitimacy is overkill.

Politics Is For Power by Eitan Hersh

Interesting and more relevant than ever. Will eventually create a thread in this vein.

There is no bloody way our discussion about being human is narrow — Athena

I didn’t once say the discussion is narrow. I said the question is narrow— which it is, in the sense of asking about one species.

The problem as I see it is that no single trait humans have a potential for are manifested in all of us — Agent Smith

So what?

Not all eagles fly. Should we throw out the term “eagle”?

Then you’re not answering the question. “Mammal” is also broad. It’s also true. Is that a satisfying answer to the question “what makes a human being a human being?” I don’t think so.

Why is a DNA-based definition too broad? For reasons already mentioned by other posters.

Why is mathematical-ability-based definition too narrow? Clearly this is an interesting question as far as I'm concerned. — Agent Smith

Every living thing has DNA. So that’s too broad when asking about a bird or a tree. For these things we look for specific attributes.

Humans have many attributes— they have atoms, DNA, cells. They have nervous systems. They have opposable thumbs. They’re bipedal. And so forth.

Some of these traits they share with other animals, some they don’t. Some are unique to them. Language and mathematics (and music, arguably) and logic are such unique traits. I don’t think it’s controversial to make this claim.

Given this is the case— yes, it’s narrow. But rightfully so— because you’re asking a narrow question: what is a human being? If we were asking “what is an animal?” then we could give human beings as an example. Or living thing. Or mammal. Or primate. But we’re not doing that— we’re asking specifically about one class of beings.

In some ways, I still largely agree with Aristotle. We’re the zoon echon logon. The animal with logos. “Rational” and “reason” are often how this is translated— but speech is fine too. That’s what I go with anyway.

1. There are humans who do not use language. Hence the definition leaves out some who should be included. — Banno

Humans that do not use language are very rare. Their existence doesn’t change that language is a human property, any more than those born blind don’t change the fact that vision is a human property. Again, I’d say that the existence of exceptions doesn’t necessitate throwing out all rules/categories.

I mentioned language specifically because it’s a property unique to human beings. Does this property “define” human being in some absolute way? No. But it’s as close a contender as I can find.

2. There are language behaviours in non-humans. Hence the definition includes animals that are not human. — Banno

There’s communication in animals. But no other animal has language. No animals can speak or sign, for example. So I’m not sure what you mean by language “behaviors.”

Incidentally, species properties aren’t uncommon. So I’m not arguing we’re very special in that regard. But I think it’s just sheer confusion to ascribe language to any other animal. It’s just clearly not the case.

So I'm not doubting that "what is a human being" is an important question, but the suggestion that it be answered by stipulation, by setting out an essence. — Banno

I don’t like “essence” either. But attempting to classify or define something doesn’t have to be mystical or religious. In fact it happens all the time in biology. We don’t kick up too much fuss about ants and frogs, yet it seems when it comes to humans we have to throw all that out. I don’t see why.

Regardless, I think we more or less agree. The question is an important one — with real world implications — and so it should be discussed. That’s good enough for me.

Perhaps we might agree that any categorisation of what it is to be human will fail? — Banno

Perhaps categorization of anything whatsoever will fail. Of rocks and trees and stars and donuts.

Is this an argument?

language
— Xtrix
awareness
— Xtrix
all pretend to be discoveries, as if being human had to be this way, and no other, but when you look closer each is an imposition. — Banno

It’s not a discovery, it’s just a fact. Humans have language. Pretty obvious. This is also a unique species property, and so is in the running for how to identify what makes an entity a human. Notice I don’t use the word “essence” myself.

If this is considered an “imposition,” then any talk about differentiating one thing from another is as well. In which case, so what?

Each will rule someone in as human and someone else out - the physically disabled, the genetically divergent (non Aryan...), the non-verbal, the unconscious; and in ruling out some folk who we would otherwise call human, each fails. — Banno

The exceptions in the aspect I mentioned (language) are rare indeed, but are themselves identified as such based on the norm. A human is still a human even if they’re non-verbal, deaf, or language-impaired. In the same way if someone can’t walk. These disabilities tell us little about human beings.

Rules aren’t thrown out simply because exceptions exist. This again assumes we’re after some ultimate, unchanging essence — I don’t see this as being the case.

the process of defining what it is to be human is ethical and political. — Banno

Yes. Which is why “What is a human being?” is an important question. Whether “right” or “wrong,” answers have been given — and these answers have important consequences indeed.

On the contrary, I think this is one of the most important questions we face. How we answer it, even tacitly, has significant social/political repercussions.

We can throw our hands up and say it’s futile to discuss. That’s fine — but answers are held anyway. I’d rather be participating than sitting out simply because a permanent solution doesn’t exist. I don’t find it futile talking about God either, despite how amorphous a term it is— especially when such a term is used as justification for immoral behavior.

I think creativity, especially in the use of language, is an essential aspect of human being/human nature. I believe this factually, and I like to emphasize it morally. I don’t see anything futile about that.

We can hold tentative beliefs and operate on the basis of them. They do not have to be static, ultimate truths on which there is no disagreement.

The reason I care is because he’s original, challenging, and interesting.

No, it’s a good question. At this point I wouldn’t speak for anyone but myself, so I won’t pretend to give any authoritative answer.

But for me, I see awareness as synonymous with consciousness — and what is consciousness? Just “being” here. It’s this. The most basic thing in the world. I can’t give a much better description, unfortunately.

I think Heidegger is referring to being in a particular situation. — Jackson

Hmm. I think there’s something to that, in the sense that we’re always “up to” something. Seeing a human being as a kind of situation is interesting.



Appreciate the quotations. Interesting stuff.

I don’t want to digress into Heidegger here, so I’ll just leave it at that.

What is openness or a clearing? Potential? — Tom Storm

Personally I think both are words for awareness. Dasein gets translated as the "there," "being-there." I think the "there" is existence, being -- "there-being," in other words. The "there" -- existence -- is this awareness, this opening.

I take the view that the defining characteristic is language. At least that appears the most obvious, in that non-human primates and other animals don't have it.

I think Heidegger et al. would disagree with this. In his view, human being is an openness, or a "clearing." I'm sympathetic to this view as well.

But let's not pretend you don't already know that. You're just looking for a way to wriggle out of having to deal with any moral judgement of NATO because that leaves you without the social support of the zeitgeist. — Isaac

:up:

I was reading an unrelated news piece today and underneath it was a comment claiming you could be imprisoned in Britain for denying that a woman can have testicles (!). More of the scary totalitarian narrative. The government may try to kill you, so you need a gun, and they will imprison you for speaking 'common sense', so you need to fight political correctness. — Baden

Exactly.

As for the hypothetical of asking someone on the street— I’m very surprised to find anyone taking that seriously. I see a lot of “if you ask a person anything you’ll get hesitation,” and things of that nature. I think that’s the wrong approach. The right approach is that the question itself, and the hypothetical scenario, is stupid — as is every outgrowth of media-driven right-wing hysteria. The transgender stuff is just one more distraction— an easy topic that petty minds can agree on and act superior about.

'what is a woman?' — M777

'politically correct' answer, — M777

So yet another thread motivated by gender hysterics. Got it. :yawn:

NY Times piece about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. Referenced above.

"Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before—this is not new," said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory - a research organization for international climate scientists providing data for policymakers attempting to address the causes and impacts of climate change. "We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?"

https://apple.news/AkyZDh_aSSBWPbTZv37pusQ

With the war in Ukraine as cover, the fossil fuel industry and the Biden administration are pumping more than ever. It’s almost certain that this month, June, there will be a major Supreme Court decision limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 in West Virginia v. EPA. Lastly, nothing has or will happen in congress, thanks largely to one guy with the most funding from big oil.

All this despite the latest IPCC report, global awareness and desire for action (according to polls, including the US), and evidence all around us — from increased wildfires and draughts to floods, melting icecaps, and rising sea levels.

So, since a minority rules the US, and since they use the idea of “states rights” as cover to legally dismantle any action on a national level (including abortion) through the Supreme Court and have all but incapacitated congress, perhaps this is even more the time to realize that politics is indeed local. That not only is there little we can do about national politics, but that focusing on your state and local level is the way to go and always has been anyway.

I wonder if we see more grassroots participation in this decade?

I've never seen censorship and repression like today. Even just the blocking of Russian voices -- it's insane. Why shouldn't we know what the Russians are saying? Why do I have to go to Al-Jazeera to find out what the Russian Prime Minister is saying? That's the kind of thing we ought to know. If they have a proposal for ending a blockade that's killing millions of people, why shouldn't I know about it?

Well, the censorship is so extreme that you can't. Almost nobody knows, unless they go to something like a marginal Libertarian website that happens to be telling the truth. It's crazy. Not only that, if you bring it up -- just talk about it -- you're immediately vilified: "Putin supporter," "commie rat," you want appeasement, you want to sell out, and so on. It's pretty astonishing.

--Chomsky