Do you believe Tara Reade? — frank

Yes.

Even if he turns out to be the Antichrist? — frank

Well in that case, yeah I'd vote Trump.

Yes I know. I began with "don't bother with people who..." and then went on about that. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at your interlocutors.

My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? — Justin Peterson

This is equating the human being with thinking -- the λογον (logon) of ζοον εψηον λογον, which has a long history going back at least to Aristotle. Your real question should be: "What is 'thought'?" and "What is 'spirit'"? Approaching these concepts historically (and etymologically) can be illuminating indeed. It'll give you some sense of where we are.

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind. — Justin Peterson

Already confusing. What "two states"? It sounds like the two states may be the conscious and unconscious states, but then where does the "because of this" come into play? Because of what? This implies that the two states of thought are the basis for the conscious and unconscious mind. Fine, but then what are those states? It's ambiguous.

When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind. Therefore, for all propositions to be true there will be no conflict and so there will be no identity of the "self". The self will determine itself to be everything. So there would be no difference between the definition of "me", and the definition of "you". There is simply the All, and the Nothing. It's possible this was what had happened before the Big Bang, speaking under the notion that the Big Bang was simply the composition of all timeless possibilities, and after the Big Bang — Justin Peterson

Sounds like quasi-Eastern philosophy/spirituality, but it's very vague. You have to do better explaining your terms. You also lost me with the Big Bang references, although I think I know what you're getting at. The Big Bang is a theory that concerns the first moments of the universe -- it has nothing whatsoever to say about the "All" and the "Nothing." There's a lot of woo-woo surrounding it, as there is with quantum mechanics, but it's best not to interject it.

After a vast amount of time, the gravitational pull of the planets and the stars will become equal, and so the stars and the planets will be immovable. It is at this point that time ceases. — Justin Peterson

But you've said nothing about what time is. We don't know whether it'll cease or not until we know what it is. Is it motion? Change? Duration? A measurement? A form of sensibility? A unity of ecstasies? Is it essentially space (as in Bergson)?

That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now. — Justin Peterson

This has been argued in the East and the West. It's no surprise that time consistently plays a central role in philosophy, religion, and science -- but while we may privilege the "now" (the present), that's not how we live our lives, and when we try to live this way (through meditation, mindfulness practices, etc), although this may be beneficial in many ways, there are still multiple aspects of our being that we still simply overlook. It's impossible to be aware of everything in any given moment. In fact, often times this gets in the way of habitually, skillfully navigating the world. A lot of this we WANT to be "second nature" and largely unconscious. (See the Centipede Dilemma.)

Better to not reinvent the wheel when it comes to defining time, existence, etc. Better to familiarize yourself with some of the unpretentious work that's been done on the subjects.

We have to do both, really. The emphasis is in fact shifting more towards preparation as it becomes more and more obvious. The links aren't always obvious, either. So given a largely ignorant population, who keep electing deniers, we're all but guaranteeing our demise.

The best thing Biden and any leader can do is to simply listen to the scientists.

Anyway, one thing I'll challenge you on now is the idea that Trump is an existential threat re climate change. He has four more years. What is the extent of the damage you think he'll do in that time as opposed to Biden being in charge? Give me some specifics. — Baden

Sure. It's fairly easy to see what it will be, given there's nearly 4 years of well-documented policies already available. And the best way to predict future behavior is past behavior, as they say.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Trump nor the Republicans are even hiding their attitude towards this issue anymore. They are telling us, to our faces, that they don't believe there's an issue, they don't trust the scientists, they're "skeptical," etc.

As far as actions, the NYT (and others) have a running tab of environmental regulations that have been or are in the process of being destroyed. The biggest is car emissions standards and regulating methane leaks.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?fbclid=IwAR0xtmcECtsmHsq2Rst3sHZdu6Mt39_HPljzzuNh6_VdkQxNdTWXTp-4mSM

There's been the appointments of oil executives and lobbyists to the EPA, the censoring of scientific information, the removal of any mention of "climate change" from their website, etc etc.

He's opened up millions of acres of public lands for oil and gas extraction leases. Many are currently in the courts.

Trump has tried repeatedly, based on a campaign promise, to prop up a dying coal industry ("Trump digs coal!"), and has taken steps in doing so -- steps which had been dictated nearly verbatim from Murray Energy, a major Trump donor (now going bankrupt).

Then there's the pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which will happen a day after the election (if Trump is re-elected). Say what you will about the agreement (it has no teeth and barely does enough), it's something the US could be in the lead on. It's being abandoned altogether by Trump and co. We'll be an outlier as one of the only nations on earth not in the agreement.

All very well documented, not secret.

How does this compare with Biden? My suspicion is that although Biden claims to be in favor of a Green New Deal and has vowed to stop any "new" drilling, he'll try going the Obama route of encouraging natural gas (which produces less CO2 than coal and oil) and taking only baby steps towards Paris Accord goals, unless pressured by environmental groups to do more (which is at least possible, whereas with the Trump administration we hit a brick wall and are in fact fighting just to prevent any gains already made in the past from being destroyed).

So here we have a real easy comparison:

One administration denies anything is happening and happily takes orders from the fossil fuel industry, appointing their executives and lobbyists to the very institution in charge of monitoring them. In other words, wants to step on the gas so we go over the cliff quicker.

The other claims climate change is real and important, will stock the EPA, as in the past, with scientists, will remain in the Paris Accords, will prevent further drilling on public lands, will at least posture as a leader in this cause (which is important for other countries), and will be sympathetic to activist causes (like Native American protests of pipelines through tribal lands, etc). All of which really should be considered the bare minimum. Hopefully they do much more. But that's the choice.

If you want a detailed plan of what Biden is proposing, see here: https://joebiden.com/climate/

Remember, I'm not saying he's the environmentalist's dream candidate. But given the alternative, he might as well be.

This isn't any old issue, either. It's the issue of our time. We just can't mess around with it, it's too important. We have to get our priorities straight.

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. — Baden

No, it isn't that complicated. I don't think you and I really "disagree," either. You know as well as I do that both political parties in the United States are beholden to "special interests" (i.e., corporate interests), and that we're living in an era of a savage version of capitalism that started roughly 40 years ago (neoliberalism). We also agree, I think, that at this point in history we are facing an imminent existential crisis, comparable only to nuclear war in its potential for destroying human life.

None of these points require great intellectual capability. They're factual claims, and really transcend any political ideology. All you have to do is look around at how things work, and maybe listen to a few scientists -- in the same way we do with everything that hasn't been politicized and manufactured to be "controversial."

All right, so in the end we're left with an admittedly poor choice, once again, between two old white men with questionable (to say the very least) character, claims of sexual assault, possible cognitive decline, etc.

Given the above situation, particularly regarding our facing extinction, what political party do we want appointing department heads (say the EPA), judges, Supreme Court justices? Who would be preferable?

We can claim that there is no difference at all, that both are equally or roughly as bad, albeit in different ways. I simply don't agree with that. The Republican party has simply gone off the rails at this point, while the Democrats are essentially "moderate Republicans."

But hone in on that one issue -- the most pressing, climate change -- and ask what not only the rhetoric is, but what the policies are, and see if there's any discernible difference. Turns out there is. Yes, a relatively small difference but, given our status, this reverberates throughout the world.

So we have one party, with Trump in the lead as the loudest, essentially denying anything is happening at all. Furthermore, he and the Republicans want to accelerate the problem -- and there's 3 years of policies that show this, which have been well documented.

We have another party who says the right things and who take only marginal steps forwards -- not nearly enough, like the Paris Accords. OK, not great -- but something. They've also shown to be much more influenceable in terms of progressive policies generally -- and this is crucial.

All of this may be long-winded and boring, and not as much fun as discussing character or about how corrupt the DNC is (which I agree with), but is there any real choice?

When these are the only options currently available, we should require a few seconds to make the easy choice, help get the less damaging party take control, and then continue hammering away at them. The other option, and one advocated here by a few people, is to vote third party, write-in, or not vote at all -- to send a message, for spite, for moral reasons, etc. All of which is a vote for Trump and the "most dangerous party in human history" (Chomsky). Why? Simple arithmetic. Another thing we can agree on.

I think the choice is clear.

Discussing this really misses the larger point, too. Remember that the real work is done not every 4 years when we get to push a button, but day after day of small steps -- small, local work. Organizing. Discussing issues with friends and families and neighbors. Educating people (and ourselves). Signing petitions, staging protests, initiating lawsuits, etc.

In addition, Trump is a crook, a whore-monger, and an ignorant, stupid, classless boor. — Frank Apisa

More importantly, his environmental policies are systematically destroying the chances for organized human life in the future, at a time when scientists are telling us we don't have time to waste.

That's far more dangerous than telling people to drink bleach or yelling at reporters.

No need engaging in conversation that's irrelevant. I don't care about personality or about the person's history, since their mostly figureheads. Let them be tried and convicted. I care - as we all should - in what the policies are and how far we can push them in the correct direction (in this case, listening to climate science).

Engaging in speculation about character is superficial and easy. It matters to those who can't think their way out of a plastic bag - don't play that game.

I see the immediate issue and I understand your position, but the existential threat in my view is the two-party system itself not one or other party. That's where we differ. — Baden

You see the immediate issue, yet still feel it's the two-party system that's the existential threat. Well that's a nice position to have, because that way we don't have to think very hard and it sounds so very outside the mainstream, but the fact remains: climate change is the existential threat. Is the two party system a problem? Certainly - a big problem. So's the electoral college, etc. If I had a magic wand, I'd change all that.

That's easy to say, but in reality we're very far from it. What we can do is consider our short term options - the only way to achieve any larger goal. As it is, we're given an unfortunate choice between an administration that has and will take us backwards, and one who will at the very least be open to activist pressure. That may be a small difference, but given we're the most powerful country in history, it matters all the same.

Voting third party or not voting at all under the guise of "Republicans and democrats are all the same" or "the two party system is corrupt" is obsolete.

A Trump and Biden administration are very different things, even conceding that they're both two factions of the corporate party. In these times, even the small differences matter.

If you want to challenge any of that, you better quote me or consider yourself corrected. — Baden

I don't recall referring to you once.

The point here is to highlight the fact that at some point, the character of the person elected must matter. — Baden

And what an insightful point it is.

Where do we rank Trump's character? Rape and pedophilia aside, what we do know for certain is this: "Climate change is a Chinese hoax."

So we're left with a choice. Two accused rapists (one with over 10 women corroborating), both beholden to the corporate sector. We don't know for certain about the former, but we do know from the least 4 years about where Trump wants to take the country: right off the cliff.

A vote for Biden is not a vote in favor of the DNC or his character, it's a vote against Trump. Let Biden be thrown out of office - he's an empty candidate anyway. What matters is getting rid of the tumor and having an administration that can be pressured into sensible actions. That may seem like nothing, but it's literally everything. It's an entire cabinet, Supreme Court justices, circuit judges, Department heads, etc etc.

Or we can take the easy road and discuss the "character" of someone who's a figurehead anyway. I prefer looking at what can be done in terms of policies, particularly regarding the existential threat we're facing.

Call me crazy.

Oh, so you're in favor of rape. Got it.

See how easy it is? This level of argument in a philosophy forum is truly pathetic.

I agree. It is pathetic that I have to make this choice. A second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US & the world. I would vote for a trained seal over Trump - provided that the trainer was a Democrat. I wish the dems could find a better candidate than Biden. — EricH

Don't bother with these morally upstanding people helping to re-elect Trump. In their minds, if you vote Biden you're just as bad as Trump voters. It's really that black and white. Forget an investigation, and never mind that you're not a democrat, not a Biden fan at all, would be glad to see an investigation and him dropping out of the race -- forget even how dangerous another 4 years of Trump is, etc. etc. -- that's too nuanced to consider.

The only logical solution? Don't vote or vote third party. Because both are "rapists." Also, ignore the fact that this strategy will also elect an alleged rapist -- one who's administration denies climate science (and any science they don't like) while in the midst of an environmental crisis and pandemic. Doesn't matter. Got to teach the DNC a lesson.

Notice too that the position has shifted. Now it's all about "rape." Why? Because it's far easier to take a righteous stand on that -- ergo, it happened; they're certain of it (because they have to be): Biden is a rapist. Now that this has been established as an axiom, they can go on chastising those even considering voting for him.

Pathetic.

You strike me as someone who has never seriously considered an idea outside of their own belief system in their lives.

Of course Flynn is corrupt and deserves to be in prison. So does Trump. Half the administration are outright criminals. You'd have no problem recognizing this if it were a Democrat in office, and you know it.

Worth pondering about that for just a few seconds and then asking yourself if this red-blue thing is really the best way to approach the truth.

I see them as related. We simply don't consider most of our behavior reflectively, including sexual behavior (thoughts or actions). Any individual's piccadillos isn't terribly interesting outside of a general psychological understanding. How these are acquired through experience is interesting, for example.

I think analyzing sex in terms of power dynamics is on the right track. The effects of internet pornography and how it's effecting adolescent male's brains is another topic of importance.

I'm digressing from the OP, but my point is only that I agree it's an important topic and should be discussed openly more - especially in our morbid, Puritanical society.

An interesting topic. Schopenhauer (and Freud of course) broke it wide open. The studies by Kinsey et al, Masters and Johnson, are worth looking into as well. As for your question: I don't find it hard to talk about, but I have to talk about it objectively.

Like most things, it's a touchy subject and therefore MUCH more interesting than average conversation.

We all know our world is inherently meaningless. — Cidat

We don't "all know" that, because that sentence itself has meaning. Does it or does it not mean anything? If it does, there's some meaning in the world after all -- that sentence. If it doesn't, then there's meaning in the world.

But let's imagine that we happened to find some irrefutable meaning in this world. — Cidat

Meaning is always relative to some framework. From my philosophical standpoint, no reality truly matters. Truth is just truth. — Cidat

What about the framework that allows you to say that "life is meaningless"? That's an interpretation too, also based on a framework or a 'perspective.'

To paraphrase Nietzsche, it's not life that's meaningless but rather the people that make that assertion.

Does anything truly matter? — Cidat

No.

I'm 83...and I still care.

I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good. — Frank Apisa

All of these things, as you well know, have been around for decades. But it's the degree to which they've been amped up. They don't even care about pretext anymore -- it's just in-your-face corporatism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/one-in-every-four-circuit-court-judges-is-now-a-trump-appointee/2019/12/21/d6fa1e98-2336-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

And this is from December. Another thing to keep in mind while we consider a possible "protest vote."

More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me. — Frank Apisa

Getting discouraged is a surefire way to keep losing. Remember too: Even though 5 will vote for Trump, the large majority will vote for someone else (as was reflected in the 2016 election) with a plurality going to Biden. That's encouraging -- because despite putting up yet another weak candidate, most people are still sensible enough to vote against the sociopath in office.

There are more sane people in this country than not.

Most have no clue what's going on and don't bother with politics or voting at all. That's the largest "voting block" -- non-voters. The ones who do vote are stuck with the information they're given, depending on the geographical and cultural factors, and base their decisions on this information.

If it's conservative radio, it's far more likely you'll have a picture of the world colored by the interpretations of Rush Limbaugh and the rantings of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Dennis Prager. The same is true for liberals in the cities and suburbs listening to NPR, watching MSNBC, and reading the Huffington Post. A certain picture of the world emerges there as well. Decisions get made on this (mis)information. Most of it is propaganda. This creates two pictures that gradually drift farther and farther apart and become more extreme, generating hatred. It's clear that we've now reached a point where's no common set of facts anymore and no notion of "truth" -- there's only pure tribalism: anything my side believes is true, anything we don't like is fake news, and anyone holding opposite views are anti-American traitors. I see it being much more problematic on the right, and it could even lead to a kind of civil war in the not-so-distant future.

But given all this, the more sane party -- the Democratic Party -- still has the advantage. The Republican coalition is dying out. They are old, less diverse, more rural, less educated, and increasingly more working class. It's this last group that the Democrats should focus on winning back with progressive policies -- not the neoliberal Clintonite policies of the 90s (and much of Obama).

I see this advantage more and more, despite how close things are right now (seemingly 50/50 in the key swing states). As years pass, the electorate becomes younger and more diverse. That's worth paying attention to. They're more progressive, have less bias against the evil version of "socialism" from the Cold War era, care deeply about the environment, are more organized and politically engaged than Gen Xers, etc. But will it be too late?

In many respects it will -- they'll have to contend with the damage done by these previous generations, on the environment especially, but also with nuclear weapons, with the US judicial system now stacked with lifetime-tenured reactionary judges, with the weakening of unions, and with the elite control of the educational system, media, campaign funding and lobbying.

I'm old enough to see where this is leading and young enough to care.

5 people in this poll voting for Trump.

I shouldn't be shocked that ignorance abounds everywhere, even in philosophy forums.

Science uses concepts. A biologist will use concepts like organism, gene, structure and function. These concepts link up with predictions and experiments. Do you see any use of the concept of phusis by scientists in their theories or experiments? — fdrake

No I don't. I don't think most scientists think about or really care about the underlying philosophical assumptions or systems of beliefs that they hold, any more than computer programmers know or care about logic gates and transistors or engineers about Euclidean axioms.

Phusis is the Greek concept of being. ""Nature" and "physics" are therefore cognate.

I'm only again pointing out this etymology because it connects with our modern meaning of being , so knowing something about this root word's meaning (phusis) is potentially enlightening. I've pointed out some ways why it is in fact enlightening to think about and question this concept.

What Heidegger says is that both the Greek conception and our conception of "being" (and beings) has a temporal basis: the present.

This "emerging" that the Greeks thought of as being is also tied to their conception of truth (aletheia - unconcealedness), phenomena (beings; φαινόμενον, from φαίνειν (phainein) "to shine, show, manifest"), substance (ousia), logos (gathering), and physics (phusike). Heidegger sees dasein (human being, the "there") as a "disclosure," a "clearing," or a "lighting" -- so we're unconceal-ers, truth-openers, where being is an "issue" for us. Our understanding of anything at all (being) is connected with our being, which is a temporal one.

One particular mode of time gets privileged in the Greek understanding of beings: the present. And it's THIS that has persisted to the present day in philosophy and science (and our religion/spirituality!). Whenever we question the world reflectively, or try to understand anything at all "objectively" or "abstractly" we operate in the same mode of being we're in when things break down: the present-to-hand, which is a detached way of being, a "founded" mode which is the exception rather than the rule (the rule being ready-to-hand activity).

We therefore do this philosophical and scientiifc analysis while "presencing," which is a mode of time (the present) and which thus transforms beings into "present-at-hand" entities (e.g., "objects," "substances," res extensa) -- as opposed to the ordinary, everyday mode of being we're in, which is a caring, concernful coping, reading-to-hand activity (which is also interpreted as temporality: past/present/future unity).

This is why the Scholastics, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Kant, Hegel, and up to the present day has lead to the "dead end" of nihilism: everything is interpreted as an "object" or resource, nature becomes a matter of calculation and thus, most importantly, human beings get interpreted as "subjects," "creatures of God," "talking apes," "ghosts in a machine," etc., with all of the epistemological problems generated from these variations, and leading to untold political and economic blind alleys and even outright harm.

This is why I think you're seriously better off getting Trump for another 4 years than some appeasement from Biden that very likely had the effect of diminishing the start of this fire.

Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot. — Benkei

It's a fair point, and if this were any other election (besides 2016) I might agree it would be worthwhile just to rile the population even more. This is, after all, a time of more political organizing and activism than possibly even the 1960s, starting with the Women's March (largest protest in world history).

But we have to consider the larger context. For me, climate change is the most important issue -- because it's existential. Trump's policies on that are a well-known disaster and will continue for another four years, which we simply cannot afford. (Nuclear weapons are important too, as Chomsky has pointed out, but I know less about that other than Trump is accelerating our destruction there as well.)

If those things aren't scary enough, look at the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. McConnell has already appointed nearly 200 judges, and Trump has had two SCOTUS picks. Trump will almost certainly get another appointment if re-elected, shifting to a 6-3 conservative majority -- and possibly 2 (as Breyer is 81 years old). That will do untold long-term harm as well, leaving out even environmental policies mentioned above.

So as much as I'd love it, as someone who campaigned for Sanders, I'm forced to put reason over emotion in this case.

Appreciate the post, but I really don't know what you're asking me here. Perhaps you could be more straightforward. I think I've been fairly clear about my purposes.

just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.
— Xtrix

Will it continue without him as a focal point? — frank

There's good evidence to suggest that, yes. The Sunrise Movement isn't based on Sanders as a leader. Nor was the Occupy Movement (in fact he was riding that wave in many ways). The policies of $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, Green new deal, etc., aren't exclusively Bernie's anymore, and that's a good thing.

So in many ways we've seen that these movements and policies have developed a life of their own.

Lol. There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
— Xtrix

Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity. — h060tu

No, it wasn't -- nor does any scientist believe that. Newton's theories are not "wrong," nor were "proven wrong." Yes, it's true that many simpletons like you believe that, but it's not true. What Einstein did was to expand on Newton with new conceptions of space and time. Newton's laws of motion remain absolutely intact, as does the calculations.

Quit while you're behind, buddy. No one, least of all me, thinks you know anything about science. You've repeatedly shown your incompetence and buffoonery. But keep it up for laughs if you'd like.

Getting back to the discussion after many digressions and diversions from the OP:

_______________

Phusis is the basis of modern science. Why? Because modern science's ontology is one of naturalism, a kind of physicalism, and these ideas have their roots in Greek ontology.

We take naturalism for granted in the sciences, and oppose it to the "metaphysical" (and thus philosophy and religion). These are well-worn ideas.

But "science" and its naturalism sprang from the philosophy of nature (the "Natural Philosophy" of Newton and Galileo). This naturalism (or physicalism) is a picture of the world, which rests on a set of axioms -- the first and "obvious" is that the universe (nature) is "made" of matter (atoms) in space, follow laws like causality, and abide by the forces of nature (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces).

What is "behind" this ontology? What does (and did) "nature" mean? It meant the disclosure of beings, the clearing of beings, the opening up and emergence of beings. This phusis is the word for this emergence, and is the Greek understanding of being. This word was translated into Latin as "natura," and also as "physics." It has gone through many iterations, but despite the apparent differences it has remained through and through Greek. Why?

Because the Greek sense of phusis already had in it a privileging of an aspect of time: the present. When things appear to us in perception, when they emerge from unconcealment (as truth, as aletheia), when they are "disclosed" -- they are understood on the basis of time, and particularly the present. Beings come to being in the present -- this is the history of Western thought, which has dominated it ever since: presence.

Being, phusis, means constant presence. As does ousia (or parousia) in Aristotle (often translated as "substance").

This "metaphysics of presence" is the basis for not only modern science, but Christian ontology and dogma, for the philosophies of Descartes and Kant, for the scientific research of Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, and to the contemporary manifestations in Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, John Wheeler, and even Noam Chomsky.

Why is this interpretation important? In the modern world, that means: How is this useful? How can it be monetized? But the answer to that can't be given. Philosophy is quite useless in this respect.

Given our current age, where we have the capacities to destroy ourselves with our technology (nuclear weapons, fossil fuel consumption, biological weapons), where our understanding of being -- a technological-nihilistic understanding -- is coming to dominate all other understandings of being all around the globe, it may be well to ask these questions to shake some of the our certainties in our current "scientific" worldview. Perhaps scientism isn't such a good thing. Perhaps the "death of God" has led to a nihilism in the form of this "scientism," leading to a world where the merchants and manufacturers -- and thus the merchant class worldview -- have come to power.

It is the business class, the merchants, who have gained rule. It is not governments and not the majority of people. Where does their power lie? In trade; in money. What is their philosophy? Capitalism. Maybe some believe in God, maybe some are atheists who believe in science. But none of these things -- not capitalism, not scientism, not atheism, not even Christianity any longer, offers us any real direction or hope for the future. If we continue on this path, we're finished.

That being said, the connection becomes clear: modern science is one of the dominant forces in the world today, not just in its successes but in replacing what most people once believed (Christianity) with the "results of science," which has therefore become in many ways a kind of "religion." But it offers almost no guidance to live, no direction, no goal -- other than the endless quest for "truth" and "knowledge."

This all therefore shades over in power, politics, economics, and morality. The most important people to read here are Marx (economics and politics), Nietzsche (morality), Chomsky (politics). All these men study power in its various domains.

So where's the hope? Not in philosophers and scientists and priests, but in artists and poets -- as the vanguard of humanity and the hope for some new understanding of being.





* On "metaphysics of presence." Being seems to be hidden and concealed in Heidegger, it's mainly absence. Our Western history has stressed presence. Thus to acknowledge the majority of what a human being does in average everydayness shows that more of our present-at-hand analysis, philosophy, science, etc., are all based on a highly minority activity -- a small part of the human being, which usually only occurs in school or when something breaks done. The majority of our lives are spent in skill, in habit, in "coping," in "engagement," in unconscious activity which is called "ready to hand", where traditional ideas of a theoretical, rational, logical subject which follows rules while dealing with "objects" which are "out there" and in which we deal with as present-at-hand facts (with extension, weight, mass, shape, etc).

More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.
— Xtrix

I'm not sure why. Apathy? Jaded? Or not quite agitated enough? — frank

Who knows. Some say the younger voters just don't show up in the numbers that older voters do.

I mainly watch PBS and read the NYT. I only glance at CNN and MSNBC. I become tired very quickly of their strong emotional bias. They aren't there to inform so much as to cash in on anxiety. I don't think they manufactured anxiety about Sanders' chances, but I agree that they peddled it. — frank

I don't think it was manufactured either. There's a filtering process that happens in media -- those who write the op-eds have internalized a set of core beliefs, and are thus quite sincere in their anxieties.

He's definitely not a firebrand, that's for sure. Chomsky said a Sanders victory wouldn't do anything without a continuing grassroots movement. — frank

True, not at least with congress and many state legislatures. Even then it means nothing with a clear activist agenda.

Can that proceed without Sanders in office? I wonder if anyone has asked him to talk about that. You're up there, why don't you email him and tell us what he says? — frank

Up where? And e-mail who? Chomsky? There's no need -- just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.

I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty. — Baden

If it turns out he's guilty, and I hope he is, then maybe the DNC can prop up someone else. It'll never be Sanders, of course, but even Mayor Pete is a better candidate. If not, and Biden is somehow elected, but convicted while in office -- impeach him and remove him, let the VP take over.

No thinking person likes Joe Biden, in my view. I haven't met one person enthusiastic about his candidacy (although they must be out there?), regardless of the truth or falsity of these accusations.

But all of this truly misses the point. None of it matters as much as other issues. Let him be thrown out of office -- fine. He's essentially a figurehead anyway. What matters is removing the most dangerous president in American history, then the staffing of cabinet positions, department heads, appellate and Supreme Court judges, an administration responsive to activist pressure (as Chomsky points out), etc. etc.

And at this point in history, we can't gamble. But that does NOT mean condoning rape or loving Joe Biden or the DNC or even the Democratic party. Obviously many purists disagree and believe voting third party (or not voting) will send a message. But even if that's true (and I have yet to hear solid evidence supporting this), I don't think we have the time to wait. If I did, perhaps I'd agree with this strategy.

This election is just far too important for sticking to the less dangerous party when we have a sociopath in the White House. Think of a Supreme Court with a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority for at least a generation, or four years of propping up the fossil fuel industry while the effects of climate change are already occurring? It should terrify everyone.

We have to get our priorities straight. Survival has to come first -- then we deal with everything else, like corruption, privacy invasion, Biden's sexual history, corporations buying elections, and so on. All very important, but not existential.

That's as rational as I can state my position.

As with Obama, personality trumps substance. — Baden

Is it really Biden's charming personality? I think Trump is far more entertaining as "personality."

Why do you hold the DNC responsible for Biden's (assumed) nomination as opposed to the voters? — frank

I don't hold them solely responsible. It's true that in South Carolina, for example, he did very well with Black voters, the elderly, etc. More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.

On the other hand, the DNC was very clear about what they wanted from the beginning, doing all they could to stop Sanders -- including the rapid events of the other candidates dropping out and quickly rallying around Biden. Sanders also never had the media on his side. Now, of course, you hear nothing but how great of a guy he is -- but we all remember the hit pieces escalating every day as it was becoming clearer he could become the nominee and panic set in.

So it's not only the DNC, but mainly. Had they been behind him as much as this senile, weak, milquetoast establishment politician who they have ordained as the nominee and now have to prop up, Bernie would have easily won. Instead they joined the conservatives by attacking him for being "extreme," basically a communist, and more importantly stressed how there was "no chance" he would beat Trump (I had this debate on this forum, in fact -- needless to say that was not backed up with the polling data).

The rest is history. Now we're left with this shadow of a man. I'll be very interested in the VP pick (the most important VP pick in history, in my view), and what further concessions he makes to Sanders' voters.

[#####] has a point. DNC made a big mistake putting Biden up.

Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.

But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.

But how well established is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”

But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.
___________

The above is from a climatologist, as well. Your arguments are so predictable I can literally copy and paste ready-made responses, because so many ignoramuses make them.

It's quite pathetic. (I know I shouldn't "shame" people, but this level of ignorance is just astounding. The logic used to justify it is even more staggering.)

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.
— Xtrix

And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. — h060tu

There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.

There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly. — h060tu

It does mean something -- it means there's overwhelming evidence, which should be taken seriously by ignoramuses like you. Or you can side with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are in your camp.

Regardless, what is your evidence that explains the data, then? What's the alternative that you're offering?

Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, pretends purports to be scientific. — h060tu

Ohhh, I see...tell me more!

I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it? — h060tu

I'm interested in evidence which, in this case, is overwhelming. If you want to debate Keynesian economic policy and its effectiveness, that's fine -- but that's not climatology.

You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is. — h060tu

I never claimed to. In fact I have another thread going right now that discusses the nature of science. But who cares? We're talking about evidence, not the philosophy of science.

But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case. — h060tu

The climate is changing, and at a rate beyond natural variability. The reason it's changing is because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and deforestation, etc. This isn't complicated. The predictions that were made (and documented) in the last 20 years or so have proven remarkably accurate, although they were often too optimistic. This has been extensively documented for years -- and I'm sure you've read all about it.

No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is. — h060tu

Gotcha.

What study might that be, exactly?
— Xtrix

The one you pretended to know about. — h060tu

Which was what? Or are you the one pretending?

You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world. — h060tu

Ah, thanks Dr. Freud. Nailed it. I guess I WANT to believe that the climate is changing at an alarming rate because of my "death instinct"? Definitely not the extensive, overwhelming evidence from thousands of scientists around the global that have studied this their whole lives.

I'll go with an ignoramus on the Philosophy Forum! He has the "real" truth! Just like Donald Trump does. Everything else is "fake news."

Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. — h060tu

Ah, there it is. The new denialist line: "the climate is always changing!"

But don't take it from me:

"So technically that's true. The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."
--STEPHANIE HERRING, climatologist

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it. — h060tu

Because climate science is "model based"?

Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything. — h060tu

Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. — h060tu

You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc.

The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understood if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.