"Useful to determine a current scientific theory" is incoherent. Philosophy plays no role in scientific theory? Of course it does. The basis for modern science has its roots in Greek ontology, which is the subject of this thread. It's not simply a matter of philology, it's a history of Western thought and, therefore, modern science.
— Xtrix

Excuse me, but saying that contemporary science has something to do with the Greek concept of nature, perhaps, probably indicates that one has vague ideas of one and the other. — Borraz

OK -- why? This isn't an argument. You're offering nothing here.

Even the conception of the physical during the Enlightenment is not related to contemporary physics. By the way, have you heard of Einstein? — Borraz

Are you going to present any kind of analysis? Making vague statements and asking fatuous questions isn't interesting to me.

"Heidegger wrote well"? Says who? I didn't think he wrote particularly well, myself. What have you read, exactly, to make a claim one way or another about him I wonder?
— Xtrix

For example, Heidegger, M (1976) Wegmarken, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, in Gesamtausgabe; V.9. I Abteilung : Veroffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970, pp. 105 ss. — Borraz

This is an "example" of what? That Heidegger wrote well or what you've read? If the latter, why am I particularly interested in "pp. 105"?

Fun thing I discovered recently: the roots of "physics" and "ethics" have senses very, very similar to "nature" and "nurture". Etymologically, the physical or natural is the inborn; the ethical or "nurtural" is the cultivated. — Pfhorrest

Well "inborn" is an interesting translation. I've heard a more common one is "birth" or, in Heidegger, an "emerging, abiding sway" (kind of a strange wording). But apparently the contrast in Homer's day, and through to the pre-Socratics, was between phusis and nomos. So that definitely makes sense.

Insofar as "our senses and our reason" are "natural" (i.e. of nature as well as in nature, that is, do not transcend nature), how is it even possible for us to "know" more than, or anything else but, "nature" when our cognitive apparatus consists of only "natural senses and reason"? — 180 Proof

That's fine -- once we know what "nature" is. Saying our senses and our reason are part of nature is sensible, but nothing new.

The even more fundamental, or preliminary (thus, 'perennial'), question at the root (ῥάδιξ) of (Western and non-Western) "thought": "what is real?" - more precisely: what about 'any X' differentiates 'real X' from 'not-real X'? — 180 Proof

I don't agree with that. This has been believed for centuries, of course, but I don't find it compelling. "What is real" is hardly more fundamental than, for example, "What is?" I think we'd agree on that. So my point in creating this thread was to question the origins of the concept "nature" -- not the "real," although this is related. Why is it related? Because most scientists (and philosophers) would claim, as you are, that what is "real" is what's natural.

Maybe you can present a better way of connecting the two.

The advent of the new conception of physics and science swept aside the Aristotelian concept of science - as it had to do, because this conception was based on a thoroughly outmoded method largely comprising armchair reflections on what things ought to do, without the rigorous observation that true science requires. — Wayfarer

I really don't agree with this. What "concept of science" did Aristotle have, exactly? To say there was an "outmoded method" is also anachronistic, if we're to agree that there is such a thing as the "scientific method" at all, which I don't believe there is -- nor has it ever been defined.

I'm not sure you understood my question. I was asking for an analysis of phusis, which is the root of our words "physical" and "natural."

Thus I don't see how Nagel's quote is relevant, nor do I agree with his analysis.

The analysis of a concept is a legitimate philological task, but little or nothing useful to determine a current scientific theory. Heidegger wrote well, but not for scientists. — Borraz

"Useful to determine a current scientific theory" is incoherent. Philosophy plays no role in scientific theory? Of course it does. The basis for modern science has its roots in Greek ontology, which is the subject of this thread. It's not simply a matter of philology, it's a history of Western thought and, therefore, modern science.

"Heidegger wrote well"? Says who? I didn't think he wrote particularly well, myself. What have you read, exactly, to make a claim one way or another about him I wonder?

Fantastic point. The Heraclitean maxim panta rhei will probably never lose its relevance. As you so correctly remarked, the axiom I'm using in my argument is that whatever there is, if there is, beyond our senses and instruments is simply impossible to access and ergo, all that we can ever do is speculate, speculate and speculate. Given that these speculations will forever be impossible to verify, to invest belief in any one of the many theories that will invariably pop up would be a grave mistake because there'll be implications, some of which may not be beneficial to us. Think of religion for instance - it is, in essence, a theory of what is beyond the senses and our instruments and look how much damage it's done. — TheMadFool

Yes indeed. But not only religion -- philosophy as well. You can't have science without philosophy. Remember that science was simply "natural philosophy" in Descartes' day, Newton's day and Kant's day. This framework and its interpretation of the empirical world dominates every other understanding in today's world, including the Christian account (or any other religious perspective, really). Therefore it's important to ask: what was this philosophy of nature? What was the basis of its interpretation of all that we can know, through out senses and our reason?

Well, a clue is given from the word itself: "natural." And so "nature." This word, as you know, comes from the Latin "natura" and was a translation of the Greek "phusis."

It turns out that φῠ́σῐς (phusis) is the basis for "physical." So the idea of the physical world and the natural world are ultimately based on Greek and Latin concepts, respectively.

Nothing you don't know, of course, but since you mentioned "beyond the senses" I was reminded of ideas about the "metaphysical" world (currently kidnapped in part by New Age-type "thinking"), which itself has its origin in φῠ́σῐς, as being the title for all of Aristotle's lectures after the ones on "physics." Supposedly this told students not to read the "meta-physics" until they read the lectures on "physics." So our current conception of metaphysics as the study of things "beyond" the natural world isn't even quite right -- but an interesting side note anyway.

So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought.

The analysis of this concept is very important indeed to understand our current scientific conception of the world, and therefore the predominant world ontology (at least non-religious, or perhaps simply the de facto ontology ). Maybe this digression is worth a separate thread, but I've always found Heidegger's analysis of it to be the most enlightening. Would be worth discussing.

Wanting only temporarily ceases depending on the want. Other wants come up to guide our actions. If we're hungry, we seek food. Once we're full, we're off to something else -- the need for entertainment, maybe, or sex, or drugs, or writing on the computer. It goes on and on. There is no real way out of it except in death. You can tweak it all a bit, but that's all you can do.

I still don't think this question really makes sense, nor have you clarified it in any meaningful way. Better to talk about what wanting IS rather than why we want "more." There's always going to be something more we want. Who cares.

As far as I can tell, naturalism seems the most reasonable point of view for anyone to assume as a worldview. — TheMadFool

You're not alone. And that's a respectable position, no doubt.

Anything beyond what can be known and beyond reason is by defintion then unknowable and/or incomprehensible. Given that what is non-naturalism coincides with the unknowable, it strikes me that to entertain a non-naturalistic standpoint is like a person born blind trying to perceive and understand color. It's impossible. — TheMadFool

If anything "non-natural" is completely unknowable, then of course what you say logically follows. But what is "nature"? If it's simply anything we can understand, then that's fine - but coming to view the knowable world as "nature" has a history, up to the modern scientific narrative of the Big Bang, evolution, particles, forces, etc. Its origin is ultimately Greek. If this current worldview is one among others, as you admit it is, then it too will evolve.

History has all kinds of ways of understanding the world -- whether it was considered God's creation or φῠ́σῐς. To believe we've settled on the ultimate interpretation is common in every era.

Ok. So do you think it's reasonable to speculate that the Dems might try to replace him? — fishfry

Just give it up man, for the love of God. There's no chance in hell this happens. None. Zero. That some "speculate" about it to rile people up, create buzz, and broaden readership is completely irrelevant to any thinking adult. Was Sandyhook a "false flag"? I could cite Alex Jones and several articles about it. I guess that makes it plausible, in your world, and totally worth entertaining? If you think so, please remove yourself from the adult table and go have fun "speculating" about anything you want.

So you all-in for Biden or what? Taking a poll of my liberal friends. — fishfry

I'm not liberal and I'm not your friend.

Nor am I "all in" for Biden. I've never liked Biden as a candidate. Will I vote for him over Trump? Of course I will. That decision should take about 3 minutes to make.

Think about it this way... If my desire for more is confused with a need, then isn't that some form of trapping oneself in a manner of speech? — Shawn

"Trapped" in the sense that the "needing" and "wanting" never end? I suppose so.

I didn't understand this.

I have to say that it appears to me to be a given -- the constant sense of moving towards something -- the future, an object, a location, a feeling, a sensation, a thought. In this activity, we're evaluating as well, meaning we label the phenomena "pleasant" or "unpleasant", "good" and "bad." We approach some aspects and avoid or "flee" others. It's always appeared to me to be the same as "willing," although this may be more associated with the act of planning and goal-creation. In Schopenhauer this is the "will to live," in Nietzsche it's "will to power." In Buddhist philosophy, it's "desiring" in the sense of "craving."

This is all just completely false. Everyone knows what matter is. — Gregory

:)

OK.

That's "understanding what the world is". How could Newton have disproved the solidity of matter? How is that possible? I don't get it. If it's solid and cohesive, we then have some understanding of it — Gregory

What is "understanding what the world is"? What are you referring to in that first sentence?

I never said Newton "disproved the solidity of matter."

"Understanding" was defined, in the beginning of the scientific revolution, in the context of the mechanical philosophy -- and explained, for example, with the concept of contact action. In this context, "body" and "matter" was given a definition. With Newton's "occult forces," that philosophy collapsed.

It doesn't mean the world doesn't exist or we can't understand anything. It just means the idea of "matter" or "body" or "physical" no longer have a technical definition. Hence issues like the "mind/body" problem is meaningless and, as I've written elsewhere, the long debates about "subjects and objects," about the inner/outer world, etc., are likewise useless.

So, reader, how do you explain the need, no... want! for more? — Shawn

I don't think this is a well-formulated question.

What do you mean by "explain"? Explain what, exactly? Desire? Wanting itself? Willing?

I take what you mean as explaining greed. In which case, there's been plenty written about that. There's been plenty written about "selfishness," etc.

The obvious answer, to me, is simply that these aspects are part of our being, our "nature" (in the loose sense of the term). But that could be wrong -- maybe some people don't have it at all. We are also very generous, we love others, we're kind, value friendship and cooperation, etc.

But for us -- the people of the modern world -- I think it's largely conditioned by the predominant philosophy, beliefs, and values of our culture.

any real definition of "body" went out the window in the 17th century, as you know.
— Xtrix

They just brought up questions of solidity, energy, and such. We still can understand what the world is and that it exists — Gregory

No, they completely discarded any sense of "body" or "material." Newton himself thought it was an absurdity, but it's what the evidence was pointing to. So the mechanical philosophy was a dead end. And it has never been revived.

I didn't say anything about "understanding what the world is" or that it "doesn't exist."

Are you your thoughts, feelings, actions?
— Xtrix

Yes. And so much more. — ZhouBoTong

Fair enough. In that broader definition, you are also your car, your house, and your clothes.

Where is this "self"?
— Xtrix

It's just a word. It has a definition. We often use words to summarize more complex concepts (like self). — ZhouBoTong

OK, and what is the definition?

I am not saying I don't somewhat understand your post modern semi nihilistic view here (that is like all of my academic philosophy vocabulary used at once, so I may be entirely wrong), but what purpose can it serve? — ZhouBoTong

Not post-modern. Nihilism also has nothing to do with it. What I'm discussing here actually goes back at least 2500 years. Maybe "mystical" is what you mean or something like that. In which case I don't agree.

I don't know what you mean by "purpose" here either. What's the purpose of hanging on to the concept of "self" in that case?

Does grass exist? If we get down to it, it is really millions of individual cells. Within these cells are organelles that serve vastly different functions. How dare we call ALL of this "grass". — ZhouBoTong

Sure. The "self" exists too. So does the meaning of life. So does beauty and justice. So does the financial crisis in Venezuela. Ordinary usage and ordinary language is fine, but we're doing philosophical analysis here, and thus appealing to commonsense notions and the dictionary just doesn't work.

Likewise for "soul," likewise for "spirit," "subject," "mind" for that matter.
— Xtrix

But these are not all the same. By definitions, "subjects" and "minds" certainly exist. "Souls" and "Spirits" only definitely exist as metaphors or fiction (I am not saying they don't exist, but they MIGHT not). Similarly, based on definitions and usage, most of us know "selfs" exist...but, of course, they exist as concepts...but upon deeper inspection, most words only exist as concepts, just like the Grass example I gave above. — ZhouBoTong

I don't understand "by definitions, x and y certainly exist." I think this is all very confused.

Grass not only exists in ordinary usage, but it also has a scientific meaning which you began to describe. It has a color and a form extended in space, etc. When analyzing the "self" scientifically (or philosophically), there's simply nothing to explore -- it hasn't been defined in any meaningful way, so we can't even begin to analyze it in the way we can "grass."

If you're defining "self" within a certain theory, and giving it a technical definition I'm not aware of, then that's different. I don't see you doing so.
— Xtrix

Nope. Just dictionary and common usage. — ZhouBoTong

Which is exactly wrong. Although this surprisingly comes up a lot in this forum - people want to settle issues with appeals to common sense and Webster's dictionary. That's not doing philosophy. It's actually more like walking into a physics department and citing the dictionary when discussing "energy."

What "evidence" is there that there IS a self?
— Xtrix

We both keep using "I" and "you". We are assuming selfs. — ZhouBoTong

So if we didn't use those words, there would be no "selves"?

Regardless, in your sense God exists, since we all say "Thank God" and whatnot. Ok, that's fine. But it's not philosophy and not science.

Lots of things are considered common sense. The moon illusion is a good example. Or gravity for that matter. For nearly 2000 years things were considered to be "going to their natural places." OK, discussion over - everyone knows it, no sense questioning it. Ditto for "God," and these days maybe something like "American exceptionalism." If you're happy with common sense notions, that's fine. I'm not out to "disillusion" anyone, but once you take a serious look into these concepts, it's quite interesting, and everyday notions just don't help.

Speaking for myself, I think and I know there's something doing the thinking but I'm inclined to believe it's just the brain reflecting on its own thoughts. — TheMadFool

The view of naturalism and modern science, for the most part. But again this presupposes "material," "body," and "physical" have meaning, and in my view they don't -- in the technical sense. Again, for ordinary usage there's no problem, but any real definition of "body" went out the window in the 17th century, as you know.

I long ago gave up the appalling vanity of trying to stay awake whilst meditating, — bongo fury

The appalling vanity? I don't understand this comment.

It's fine if one falls asleep while meditating. It's very common. But the point is to fall awake. There's nothing "vain" about that.

Meditation may help someone deal with pain (likewise hypnosis) but it is not a permanent state to function in. — Andrew4Handel

Ask Thich Nhat Hahn or Jon Kabat-Zinn if it's a permanent state. Your sense of "meditation" is limited. That can refer to a formal practice, like sitting on a cushion etc., but what's being practiced or cultivated is awareness and equanimity -- which of course can be used in any circumstance. So running can be meditation, swimming, having a conversation, etc. It's an exercise, like yoga. I like thinking of it that way.

All of the philosophical-type stuff about the self, or the concept of "Anatta" in Buddhism, doesn't really matter all that much. But I can tell you from experience that if you persevere with it, you'll see what they're talking about. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. In that sense, I truly doubt you've meditated deeply -- it's not easy to drop attachment or to recognize thinking as thinking. I myself have only caught glimpses -- but even that is worth doing.

The narratives we build around this so-called "self" is what is usually the issue for us. Jealousy, insecurity, reactions to our social environment, reactions to pain, etc. -- all have to do with our conditioned responses and our sense of "self" as a possession.

whereas in the East it's much easier -- due to their very different traditional ontologies.
— Xtrix

Apparently Hindus believe in the soul/self but Buddhists don't but the issue is constantly debated in their histories. I don't see it as a resolved issue in those cultures. — Andrew4Handel

They're actually quite similar. Remember that it's claimed the Buddha himself was a Hindu prince (at least according to legend, I'm not sure how historically valid this is but it's the best we have), which seems at least plausible. The Hindus believe in Atman, the "true self" which is supposedly something different from what we normally identify with. In realizing this, one sees that one is actually part of Brahman.

This is all very different from the concepts we've grown up in, especially handed down in our sciences and since Descartes, Kant, etc.

There is pain, yes. There are sensations. There are thoughts. There are sights and sounds. There are all kinds of phenomena in the world. To attach a "I," "me," mine," "you," etc., to it is tricky.
— Xtrix

I am not attaching anything to these things I am saying they don't make sense without an experiencer to be subject to them. — Andrew4Handel

OK, but where is this "experiencer"? Where is awareness? Is that the "self"?

I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence. — ZhouBoTong

I think you have it exactly backwards. The huge claim being made is that there IS a self. Tell us what it is and what evidence there is for it, and then we can tell you whether we believe in it or not. But that's either not been done, or when it has -- e.g., as some "entity" residing somewhere behind your eyes -- it can be shown to be not that. All we know -- whether on drugs or in deep meditation -- is that there is phenomena happening and changing -- both "in" our minds and "in" our bodies, as well as "outside" of "us," and that none of it is really "me." It's not an easy thing to grasp, especially growing up in the West, but it can be experienced. If you haven't experienced it yet but are truly interested in seeing it, then yes either take harder drugs or my recommendation would be to go to a meditation retreat for a week.

It maybe true that an external reality exists but how can we describe it? Once we start to describe it we rely on individual perceivers. — Andrew4Handel

I think the whole "inner/outer" or "external/internal world" debate is a mistake. In fact I started an entire thread about this in the "Notion of Subject/Object" a couple months ago. It's taken us down blind alleys and dead ends.

The very question, the problem itself (about the self or the subject or the external world), is based on a set of beliefs and assumptions about the world which have their origins in the thinking of Descartes, the Scholastics, and the Greeks. I think this is precisely the reason claims that are made about the "self" being an illusion is particularly hard to grasp to us Westerners, whereas in the East it's much easier -- due to their very different traditional ontologies.

I think that there is a fundamental problem in claiming something doesn't exist that people have direct access to.

For example pain. If you are in pain you know you are and no theorizing is going stop you being in pain. — Andrew4Handel

There is pain, yes. There are sensations. There are thoughts. There are sights and sounds. There are all kinds of phenomena in the world. To attach a "I," "me," mine," "you," etc., to it is tricky. It's fine for everyday use, but when you analyze it philosophically or scientifically, or even introspect for a while (or meditate, as in the Buddhist case) you find that it's not really defined at all. This is why it's sad to be an "illusion." It's not that you or I don't "exist," but that those very terms (when referring to individual "selves") are actually quite vague and, in the end, meaningless.

I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self."
— Xtrix

I am less convinced. Soldiers and athletes block out pain regularly. Many women cry like babies when they bump their leg on a table and yet somehow give birth without going into shock. Mental strength? No question. Some sort of "loss of self"? Possibly, I just have no reason to believe it. — ZhouBoTong

Believe what, exactly? When looking at it closely, it's obvious there's no such thing as "self." Are you your thoughts, feelings, actions? Where are "you"? Where is this "self"?

A useful, common-usage term we all use? Sure. But in the same way as speaking of the "meaning of life" or something like that. I know what you mean, but there's no way to pin it down in any naturalistic sense. Likewise for "soul," likewise for "spirit," "subject," "mind" for that matter.

If you're defining "self" within a certain theory, and giving it a technical definition I'm not aware of, then that's different. I don't see you doing so. In fact you've given no definition, and so it's hard to say whether or not we "believe" in something when we don't know what it is.

I can see some value here, but more along the lines of remaining agnostic to the possibilities, vs actually making a claim (there is no self) that would require evidence. — ZhouBoTong

What "evidence" is there that there IS a self? Well, first we have to define what we mean by "self," and then provide the supporting evidence. But none of that has been done and, in fact, when you go to do it you find it evaporates. Is your liver a part of your self? Is it your brain? Your thoughts? Your sensations? Your memory? Etc.

Like the concept of "God," people will often say similar things: "Well you can't PROVE there is no God!" I hope you see the flawed reasoning in that sense. I think you're doing something like that here.

but what we are and who we are have a long history of interpretations.
— Xtrix

And what is wrong with summarizing these interpretations with words like "I" or "self"... — ZhouBoTong

Nothing. As long as we don't take it too seriously.

What the Buddhists will say is that we become "attached" to the "I," the "self," and that this is a cause of suffering.

Perhaps another way of phrasing it...what purpose would it serve to admit there is no self...? Would we act differently? Would we know anything new? Do we gain anything? — ZhouBoTong

I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self." So we can certainly act differently, and I think it is a kind of "knowledge" in the sense of recognizing a concept that isn't what we normally think it is -- that it doesn't have a locus. I don't know about "gaining" anything per se. But, again, maybe.

Nothing wrong with referring to yourself as "me" or anything like that. As with most ordinary speech and thinking, we know what we mean by it.

True, but the same is true with God existing. God itself, one may argue, is a name for a "perspective" too.
— Xtrix

I guess it depends on how capable that god is at seeing "at all angles" and making accurate discernments/judgements. It also is contigent on if that god is good and/or doesn't take bribes and doesn't prefer physically attractive women. Lets be honest god is a man. lol. — christian2017

Yeah, I just think "god" is a word that refers to "being," that which is "bigger" or larger than "us." Interpreting "it" as a person-like entity is understandable, but almost certainly wrong. We see this instinct in every culture, but there's no reason to take it too seriously.

It's not inconsistent. What gets "reincarnated" in their view isn't a "self" or even an "object" in our Western sense of the term. What we are as "individual entities" or beings, we're part of a bigger "being" as well, which in their view is Anicca -- change. Since they notice all things change in the present moment (and always), ideas about "reincarnation" make sense. But the Buddhists don't stress this, and if they do it's not what we've come to believe it is in the West.

If there is no god (and i acknowledge that possibility) then all of history is interpreted by flawed humans and flawed perspectives very often create even more or even worse flawed perspectives. — christian2017

True, but the same is true with God existing. God itself, one may argue, is a name for a "perspective" too.

I think the idea that the self is an illusion does not make sense. The obvious first complaint is who is having this illusion? — Andrew4Handel

To ask "who is having this illusion"? is begging the question. Maybe "one" has illusions about a "self" - this doesn't mean we reject our being. It means we reject concepts like "I," "self," "subject," "experiencer," etc. - at least in terms of traditional thinking. That we are isn't really in question, but what we are and who we are have a long history of interpretations.

Looks like the Republicans are trying their best, yet again, to screw the American people. What's the answer to this crisis, in their world? What the answer is to everything -- their ONE idea: TAX CUTS!

Specifically, tax cuts for corporations.

Even in a time of crisis, they don't even pretend to be anything other than corporate slaves. It's really repugnant.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?
— Xtrix

Oh, political speculation is verboten? — fishfry

Stupidity isn't forbidden, no. Hence why you're still allowed to post things.

You seem to only know what you read in the papers, and you clearly don't read much. — fishfry

This from a guy who continues to defend a stupid, stupid statement out of embarrassment. Forgive me if I don't care.

So you've asserted, without any evidence whatsoever.
— Xtrix

So fucking what? Look it up. Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplemental. I can't sit here and teach you Medicare. It's a very complicated system. Go do your homework. — fishfry

Lol (I actually did). The response of an adolescent who hasn't a clue wha the's talking about. Fair enough, buddy. I'll spend my time tracking down stupid claims form ignorant people with zero credibility.

I wonder where I got the idea it was a waste of time to interact with you. — fishfry

Yeah, YOU'RE the one who's wondering that. lol. God you're a joke. Goodbye.

BTW:

You've made it clear you're not interested in learning anything "in detail," so why bother?
— Xtrix

Your reading comprehension issues noted. — fishfry

Or, as I've stated, I haven't sufficient interest in the topic of health care policy to drill down another level of detail. — fishfry

I stated that I don't feel like talking about it right now in this thread. — fishfry

What was that about reading comprehension?

Not having "sufficient interest in the topic" is a far cry from "knowing a lot about it, but not wanting to talk about it."

Maybe you SHOULD be excluded from adult conversations after all.

I'd let this go but I'm really curious to understand your thinking.

I agree Hillary as the nominee is unlikely. But you think even mention of it is somehow beyond the pale. But I have seen much speculation along those lines from both the right and the left side of the commentariat for months. I just don't see why you think even mentioning the idea as a speculation is somehow wrong. I mean, Hillary's been all over the place in public the past few months, and when asked about her intentions she coyly says, "I never say never."

How do you figure that's not sufficient justification for raising the question?

Please try to answer this in complete logical sentences, not "Ugh . Come on," which is not helpful. — fishfry

To quote a very stable genius: "I don't feel like talking about it on this thread."

But seriously: keep trying to save face, it's kind of hilarious. If you can't see how stupid your original comment was, despite multiple people explaining it to you, you're not willing to see it. Which I see is a typical pattern for you.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?

Of course there will be involvement with private hospitals and private insurance, to a degree.
— Xtrix

Those involvements are exactly what makes Medicare so popular; — fishfry

So you've asserted, without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm actually quite knowledgable on health care policy and economics. I stated that I don't feel like talking about it right now in this thread. — fishfry

Ohhh, I see. Got it. Fortunately for all of us, you DO feel like talking complete nonsense. Glad you find time for that, at least.

So let's recap:

All government programs = bad.
Medicare is popular.
Thus, medicare must not be a government-run program. It's the private aspects that people like.
Evidence requested? Yes. Evidence given? None. Reason? "Don't want to talk about it."

Conclusion:

Any time you spent in my presence made you less ignorant. It was time well spent. — fishfry

Lol.

The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. — Relativist

Of course. So you'll take the 1%. That's fine...I just don't happen to agree with it. I think Bernie's policies are so much better for the country, particularly on climate change, that it's worth taking that minor risk.

Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context... — creativesoul

The participant selection process and framing of the questions. Yes, very legitimate questions about polling. Gallup has plenty of information about the process, the randomness of sampling, sampling sizes, statistical analyses, etc. Remember that it is important for business and politicians to have a clear understanding on where the public is. It really matters, and thus it's important that they get it right. Turns out, they often do.

I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — creativesoul

This wasn't directed at me, but I can relate. You're not alone. The more important an issue is, the more emotional control (especially anger) we have to exercise so that our logic and ability to listen/learn isn't obstructed.

In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart? — VagabondSpectre

I do believe you're right. There's a very volatile populist trend right now, though -- on both left and right. So the government (republicans and democrats) may actually come together to fight it, because a recession causes a lot of popular uprising, and the last one is still in our memory. People will be coming for them, and they know it. So watch for mild aid packages and other half measures to keep a decent amount of people covered. The working class poor will suffer the most, as always.

Although I went too far when I claimed Bernie was unelectable, the fact is that the data suggests he's got a lesser chance than Biden. Do you agree that it's reasonable to take that into account when voting in the primary? — Relativist

Sure. I disagree with it for a number of reasons, but it's a respectable position.

On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk. — Relativist

Yes, and there's an argument to be made there. But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. Now you have to ask: How popular are the proposals? What are the odds that they're implemented, and does it matter? And how much better for the country is this set of policies over the other?

Then there's the fair argument about the 2018 midterms, where only the more "moderate" candidates won in the swing districts, and where the "progressives" (or those closer to Sanders in proposals) all lost. Thus, how would Sanders effect down-ballot races? But to me that's really just an argument for people not turning out if Bernie were the nominee, to voting third party because they're so turned off by him or his policies. I see it far more likely that it's Sanders' supporters who stay home or vote third party, unfortunately.

If someone shows up to vote for someone as progressive as Sanders, then by their argument the moderate democrats would stay home and it wouldn't effect down-ballot races at all. I think the Democratic voters are motivated enough to vote for almost anyone over Trump, so if either Biden or Sanders lose some portion, so be it. It's either gonna be a wash, or the Sanders people will stay home in higher percentage. Now the question becomes, on top of that, who do we think turns out the most NEW voters? Who taps into the biggest voting bloc in the country (the non-voters)? The Sanders camp argues that he would, and there's good reason to believe it: he does overwhelmingly well with younger voters. And they're an active bunch, even if they're not yet voting in the numbers they should vote in. They're also the future of the party and the country. What do THEY want? What excites them?

These are all questions to ask. This isn't the easiest thing to figure out, but analyzing the demographics and projections are very important. The Republican party recognizes this, in fact. That's why they try subtle (and not-so-subtle) tactics to suppress minority voters and overall voter turnout.