This is purely anecdotal, but I don't know ONE person voting for Biden. I don't see anyone online, on radio or on television who's "excited" by Biden's running, either. It's a lot like Clinton in '16. I remember all the celebrities coming out trying to stoke the crowds, pushing the "first woman president" thing, and from what I saw it nearly always fell flat or else looked so contrived as to be embarrassing.

That's why it's shocking to me that he's leading in the polls, and does very well in key swing states. Fine, so be it -- I go with the polls over my own extremely limited sample size, but yet I wonder where these people are, how enthused they are, and why they aren't more vocal.

Here in New Hampshire, I'm seeing lots of signs for Bernie, for example. A few for Pete, Yang, plenty of Tulsi, a couple for Warren...I have yet to see ONE for Joe Biden. Here or in Massachusetts, where I work. Again, not going to claim there's some conspiracy out there -- I believe the polls -- but it does leave me wondering. Anyone else relate to this?

We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system. — Frank Apisa

It would help if we had a capitalist system to begin with, but we don't. In any meaningful sense. It's a corporate nanny state economy. Friedman and others loved to use Hong Kong and the Asian tigers as examples of capitalism improving lives, but it's a complete joke.

None of my posts get deleted, because I don't name-call. As far as expressing myself too strongly -- perhaps. Others certainly have pointed that out. But it's because these issues are important.

But I think you missed the point.

I'm sure he does appear strong in some places. It's a big country, though. I don't see him connecting with swing voters, especially after the promise to legalize pot with an executive order IIRC.

I love the guy. I'd love to have him as president. On the national level, he's a weak candidate. — frank

And, again, that's nonsense. It's your own "gut-feeling" analysis, which is useless to me. Look at the facts: he beats Trump in national polls, he's been the most popular politician in America (according to even a Fox News poll take a while back), he's doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire (both fairly independent-minded states - more so NH), even better in California. Yes, 48% of the country will probably vote conservative no matter what -- that's not saying anything.

If he's weak, then what's Trump? Trump who lost by 3 million votes. Trump who's approval rating is consistently lower than most presidents. And on and on. So if Bernie is still "weak," then who the hell is "strong"?

Stick with your condescending attitude about your fellow citizens. If you are an American, that is.

And insanity? People have believed in silly things (like the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make them insane. And calling them insane won't help. On the contrary. Your inability to notice (or understand) my or Bitter Cranks point about this just shows how deep this problem goes.

People like you simply show that the polarization is real. And it will not go away. — ssu

Cry me a river. Sue me for believing I was talking to an adult.

I'm talking on a philosophy forum. This isn't a media junket. If you can't see my point here, you're just deluding yourself so you can make the same tired, fatuous points people want to make all the time about the perils of name-calling.

Even still, I'm not insulting people, nor would I use the choice of words like "insane" when dealing in most social contexts. But it's a description of reality, made to seemingly rational adults on an online forum. There's no other way to describe voting for utter environmental catastrophe than utter insanity, ignorance, or complete irrationality.

So sorry if that's harsh to your virgin ears. Grow up, Peter Pan.

The Democratic field is obviously weak. — frank

"Obviously"? Not really. The simple fact that we have a candidate (Sanders) breaking a century of American political history, since the late 19th century, running on individual contributions -- also without establishment support or media support, and labeling himself with the scare word "socialist," -- this is a remarkable fact indeed.

Massive enthusiasm, huge popularity. All grassroots. And now he's leading or within the margin of error in the polls, including general election polls.

That's "weak"? Nonsense.

Yes. Not only that, but they are totally insane if they don't disagree Xtrix. Those climate deniers! — ssu

So judging from your attempt at sarcasm, we can conclude climate denial is NOT insane? Fine. How about completely irrational.

Eh, you're a waste of time. Stick with your battles against the dystopia of Sweden.

That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things. — Bitter Crank

I actually agree with you. I didn't say stupid, I said ignorant. Ignorant about science, ignorant really even about politics. They're ignorant of history and geography. People are ignorant about all kinds of things. I don't necessarily blame them, especially when the educational system is designed to fail and the media system is designed to brainwash (or else distract them from anything meaningful).

Point well taken.

BTW, how do you happen to be exempt from your sweeping generalization? — Bitter Crank

Because I've educated myself. The ability to do so in this country isn't impossible, but you have to be willing to make the effort.

Again, I don't fault people for having busy lives, having to work several jobs, etc. I wouldn't expect them to come home and do a research project, assuming they even had the interest.

So anyone voting GOP is insane. — ssu

Correct. For the reasons I mentioned, which you continue to ignore.

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change. — Relativist

Their denial of climate change is what makes them insane. If they suddenly become interested in acknowledging the threat and make good faith efforts to help mitigate it, then they're no longer insane and those voting for them have more of a case. But I don't see that happening.

Voters themselves are, unfortunately, rather ignorant -- republican or democrat. They're not necessarily voting based on informed reasoning anyway.

But I agree the more people who join in, the better.

Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican? — ssu

Exactly, when they're the party who's literally pushing us to the precipice of destruction. To say it's the party of Eisenhower or even Bush is a joke. They're now off the spectrum.

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring. — Relativist

The article's headline is the Republican plan is Big Oil's plan. Yes, they're been bullshitting for years about "clean coal" and other myths of that nature. They intend to do nothing, as the planet burns. For those who identify as Republicans who aren't outright deniers, to vote Republican at this point is simply insane. Either vote third party or don't vote at all if you can't stomach a (D) next to a name -- anything short of that, at this point, is voting the party who simply dismisses climatology as a hoax because their donors tell them to, and is thus insane.

At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there. — ssu

Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?

Baffling.

It's all just a big "wash." So let's just throw up our hands and give up. This is just superficial analysis.

Yes, there's plenty of lying, corruption, bribery, and hypocrisy in both major political parties. But they're not equivalent. To take just one example, and the most important: climate change. One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me.

Absolutely! Beyond question. Why? Because I'm rational. Any Sanders supporter who doesn't vote for the democratic non-Sanders nominee is an imbecile, in my view. Sanders essentially says this himself.

Fuck the swing voters, then. If they're going to stay home, let them. I'd rather a candidate that energizes the people with new ideas than to have someone bland but who appeals to a few bland people.

Please. The argument that one candidate will be less of a target for Trump and the right-wing media is absurd. To worry about it is a waste of time. It's exactly the mistake the Republican establishment made in '16 with Trump. The difference is: his win was a long shot. Bernie's (or anyone's candidacy not dubbed "moderate") chances are far greater, as nearly every proposal of his is supported by majorities.

Don't you get tired of doing this when confronted with a better argument?

True. It's frustrating.

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. — Relativist

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife.

Will anything change for me personally? No. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you sure about that? I didn't think so either, but things have changed. They're minor compared to others -- but my taxes have changed; I've had to pay money back for the first time in my life thanks to the tax scam, the company I work for has had to make changes, etc. I agree with you that it may not effect us individually that much, but seeing things you mentioned happening and not even doing the bare minimum is just a mistake. If you're out there organizing, protesting, engaging collaboratively with others on a local level, and things like that, and then decide not to vote....OK, in that case I suppose I could understand. Although it'd be strange. But if you're like me (and many others) who barely have enough time for anything, we've got to at least push a button against the worst.

I may even sit out the General due to another fact, viz. if voting really made a difference, they would make it illegal. — Noah Te Stroete

Don't be ridiculous. They're trying to make it as hard as possible to vote in some states. Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the votes and gerrymander because they see the trends.

I used to think as you do, and not vote. I hated all the propaganda trying like "Vote or Die" and the like. But I was wrong. Especially in swing states, you most certainly should vote. It's not the only thing that matters -- we can do much more than voting -- but in a country as powerful as ours, it matters and should be the minimum.

The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. — Relativist

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant).

So you may be correct, but honestly if Bernie or Warren are "too radical" for people to the point that they vote for Trump or 3rd party, or even stay home, then we deserve Trump another 4 years. But I don't think that will happen. Person after person I talk to cares about one thing: electing anyone but Trump -- they don't care who it is. We saw the turnout in the midterm elections in '18 -- it'll happen again in 20.

The NYT "endorsement" is so spineless and pathetic they play right into Trump's hands.

Bernie. Was just at a rally Saturday in New Hampshire -- lots of enthusiasm, lots of young people, the most consistent candidate out there.

For all those worried about Trump being re-elected, which is definitely possible, remember that he won Michigan by about 11 thousand votes, Pennsylvania by 44 thousand, and Wisconsin by 24 thousand. That's not a lot. His approval rating in all three states is low.

There's also no guarantee he wins Florida. And if Florida goes blue, it's over. Biden seems to poll better there than anyone else -- but it's so early the polling is essentially meaningless.

I really hope it's Bernie, and we do not make the same mistake we made with Clinton. Nominate someone decent this time, with real ideas and a campaign funded entirely by real people.

The only interesting, pragmatic and meaningful context to talk under the theme of subject/object, is the mind-body problem — Zelebg

Oh, OK. Glad your towering intellect is here to set us straight.

Proves my point. Reported. Thanks.

As did the entire thread for you, apparently. I didn’t ask for your ridiculous rationalizations for voting third party or not voting at all, I’m asking about the democratic candidates- hence why they’re the only ones listed. It’s a poll. To say anything else is completely irrelevant.

So no, it didn’t go over my head —because it’s irrelevant to begin with.

Yeah, that makes you both oh-so-special. Good for you.

Maybe. Singer is such a doofus though it's hard to take him seriously about anything.

Riveting.

would think most philosophers would be against activism given the mob mentality it often results in — NOS4A2

This is another good point. And again, this applies to scientists as well. It’s almost considered in bad taste, similar to getting involved with “pop culture”— who can be bothered? I took that attitude for a long time, only now seeing how that was a very big mistake indeed.

Like Russell said when asked why he bothers protesting rather than simply doing more work in mathematical logic (paraphrasing): if I don’t, there’ll be no one around to read the logic.

philosophy at its most potent defarmiliarizes the world, casting it in terms and grammars that are not of its own. It's only by keeping this distance in place that philosophy resists an impotent re-doubling of the world in thought. — StreetlightX

Very true. I think it’s exactly this “deworlding” that accounts for the lack of enthusiasm for activism among both philosophers and scientists. But again, you read Aristotle and see so much emphasis on politics it makes one at least want to try harder at some kind of reconciliation. I think the current era needs all hands on deck.



I agree about Rousseau but Marx was very much involved in politics and had to move to England due to his political involvements.

I’d be interested to know for sure but it appears to me that most lived a life removed from what was going on around them. — Brett

Exactly. Strange too, see as how Aristotle put quite an emphasis on the polis and political engagement.

One can’t simply live in an Ivory Tower and call oneself a philosopher— it does indeed need to show up in your lived life, in action, character, decisions, etc.

This is one reason I consider Russell and Chomsky so admirable.

For context, I'm with Kant 100% that we get reality 'filtered.' I'm just not sure that his particular system is stable or eternally correct. What Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Derrida have to say about language makes the situation more complicated, IMV. — mask

See, here I disagree. Derrida is on par with Zizek in my view -- a completely incoherent waste of time. Please point me to what you're referring to regarding Derrida's contribution to language.

which is why we're referred to as beings. — Wayfarer

_____
being (n.)
c. 1300, "existence," in its most comprehensive sense, "condition, state, circumstances; presence, fact of existing," early 14c., existence," from be + -ing. Sense of "that which physically exists, a person or thing" (as in human being) is from late 14c.
_____

"Being" applies to anything that exists, not just to conscious things.

Heidegger was entirely right to inject time into any analysis of things, even though he tethered that injection to (a certain conception of) death in a way I find problematic. — StreetlightX

Being-towards-death plays a role in human life and temporality, yes, but I don't see how it's very problematic. In fact the above is rather vague.

This would be forgetfulness or ignorance of 'tool being' or equipment as ready to hand but not 'present.' — mask

Particularly the not-noticing of equipment use, yes. Our "ready-to-hand" activities simply don't involve a subject and an object at all, and yet this is how we spend the majority of our time. From Plato on, then, the history of philosophy has been a history of "presence." This is what's especially fascinating in Heidegger, in my view. His analysis of the Greek language and the presocratics is superb. It's funny that a lot of his work is untranslated still.

Repeat: your interpretation is wrong, but I don't care. It's not beneath discussion -- I started this discussion. Feel free to start another one. Or respond to someone else. It's irrelevant to me.

So even if a person jettisons the death and authenticity stuff, the unveiling description of all the structure of the mundane that we usually ignore as too close to us is a game changer. — mask

I've never placed too much importance on Heidegger's views on death. Authenticity is interesting. But you're right -- his phenomenological analysis of "average everydayness" has always beens striking to me. His Introduction to Metaphysics should be read by anyone serious about Heidegger, and would be my recommendation to you if you haven't already.

Because it makes a difference as to what kind of thing the transcendental subject is. Collapsing the noumenon into the thing-in-itself idealizes the thing-in-itself in a way that makes Kant... Fichte. It makes all the difference in the world. — StreetlightX

No, it doesn't. As I said above -- does it negate the conception you mentioned? No. And that's all I care about.

Try as I did I still don't see your interpretation as being coherent, or supported textually. But really whatever else one wants to say about noumena is irrelevant to me at this point.

I’m mostly in that camp with your friends. He does well to make clear some of Husserl’s ideas, but overall he narrows the phenomenological interest to language alone. — I like sushi

Regarding the last part: you could argue, maybe, that later Heidegger narrows himself to language (and poetry), but earlier Heidegger certainly not. HIs interest then, and I'd argue even later, was ulitmiately being, not language. Hardly too narrow.

In phenomenological terms the whole subject/object issue isn’t much of an issue at all. — I like sushi

True enough.

I like Heidegger, especially the lectures that made him famous among students well before Being and Time. Have you read any of the early stuff or perhaps The Young Heidegger by Van Buren? Having looked at the early stuff, it's clear to me that Blattner's Heidegger's Temporal Idealism gets 'death' wrong. It's nothing so complicated. It's just the possibility of our own death, certain but indeterminate. Memento mori! — mask

Yes I've read his lectures on Aristotle and Hegel. I didn't find Blattner's book all that convincing. I haven't heard of "The Young Heidegger."

Theory's subject-object device is part of an epistemological project that neglects our primary, non-theoretical kind of existence --the same experience of sharing a world of tools and words that makes such a theory possible in the first place. — mask

Interesting. It does seem he's getting at that when speaking of "de-worlding." But yes, that the subject-object dichotomy is just a "founded" mode of seeing the world I get out of him as well. And I have to say that prior to reading Heidegger, I never had quite considered things in this way, despite reading Freud and Schopenhauer and all our contemporary talk of automaticity.

Thanks again - I wasn't familiar with his podcast, but I like the podcaster as an interviewer. I know Dan, we live in the same town, and although I don't particularly agree with him much he's a very kind man and deserving of his success.

So to move this discussion into a slightly different direction: is anyone very familiar with Heidegger's take on the subject/object distinction? I myself have read a great deal and am not in the camp that he's a deliberately obfuscating charlatan, as many of my friends claim.

Nevertheless, if anyone has bothered I'd like their interpretation.