philosophy of the mind is almost never falsifiable — Tarskian

So, what could falsify the thesis you're proposing in this thread? What could someone point to, to demonstrate that your contention 'Mathematical truth is chaotic' is false? Isn't Popper's point that metaphysical theses cannot be disconfirmed by empirical discoveries? What empirical discovery would disprove the thesis 'Mathematical truth is chaotic'?

If mathematics is "just string manipulation" then it is indeed "about nothing". — Tarskian

Isn’t that just an example of Kant’s dictum ‘concepts without percepts are empty’?

Well the Trump cult does love their delusions. — Mikie

What was that bet again? $10.00 to charity of choice? Looks like I'm about to pay up.

As I said in the Trump thread, the assassination attempt is a big plus for the Trump campaign. Not to suggest for one minute it was planned or staged - it genuinely appears to be the act of an irrational loner - but that it plays right into the hands of 'martyr' and 'deep state conspiracy'. Many of his supporters will see it like that regardless of the facts.

Still hoping Biden passes the torch.

Judge Cannon by now has a long history of questionable decisions in that case, most of which seem to have leaned towards the defendants. This dismissal is the capstone of those earlier decisions. It was her response to a motion to dismiss by the defendant. It is being said that the Department of Justice will appeal, but you can bet your boots that if Trump wins in November, this and all the other legal actions against Trump will go away, as he's obviously been betting on. If he looses, we guess that there'll be an appeals process, but it will take years, as always. And such an apparently open and shut case!



But then, the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is being practically interpreted by Trump as an affirmation of what he's always believed, and what his followers believe - that he's above the law. An emperor, not an elected official.

They're already fundraising off the clenched fist shot. It's the ultimate grift gift for a Donald Trump: martyrdom without death.

So you believe Putin is bound by doctrine? You think if a multinational force started to engage Russian troops that he would not resort to tactical nukes? You would take that risk, if you were in the position?

Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them.

Former President Donald Trump is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. …

The reason, according to experts: Companies in the U.S. that import goods from abroad typically pass the cost of tariffs onto American consumers; relatedly, domestic manufacturers then often raise their own prices.

The biggest impact of higher import tariffs would likely fall on low- and middle-income consumers because they spend a larger share of their income on goods and services than wealthier Americans.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-tariffs-proposal-10-percent-1700-cost-per-us-household/

Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. — Benkei

Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ not be a consideration? Don’t you think that if Russia were not a nuclear power that NATO would have put boots on the ground in February 2022?

Thomism is all together too in the middle, too ordinary, too boring to possibly be true in any real sense of the word. — Gregory

Be that as it may, and I certainly don’t agree, neither the points raised in the OP nor the philosophy of Hegel are relevant to the issue of what nominalism is. Only @Count Timothy von Icarus’ and my post actually address the question which originated in the medieval period centuries before either Descartes or Hegel.

Western ethnocentrism wanting to call the shots. — ENOAH

It’s more that seeing through our own cultural conditioning is very difficult. That goes for Buddhists too.

I do agree that factory farming is often extremely inhumane and that animals suffer through it.

We've been consuming Impossible Meat (plant-based mince products) for a couple of years, but it is literally twice the cost of regular mince. I've often admired vegetarianism, and have even tried to 'go vegetarian' for quite long periods, but living in a meat-based culture, and having been brought up consuming meat, it's hard to find the motivation to continue with it.

It turns out that lab-grown meat is astronomically expensive. See this gift link to long essay on the problems besetting lab-grown meat, NY Times, February 2024.

Meanwhile, as Biden and politicians around the word pile on the platitudes about 'unification' and 'coming together', and the abhorrence of violence in politics, guess which side is using the episode as ammunition in the culture war?

"J.D. Vance, a contender for Trump’s choice of running mate, said in a social media post on Saturday that the shooting was “not some isolated incident” and suggested President Biden’s campaign was, at least in part, at fault.

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Vance said on the social platform X. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” ~ The Hill

"Mr. Trump’s eldest son, his campaign strategist and a running mate finalist all attacked the political left within hours of the shooting even before the gunman was identified or his motive determined. “Well of course they tried to keep him off the ballot, they tried to put him in jail and now you see this,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the former president. (Later deleted.)

So you can bet that Trump is going to use this attempt as a weapon against Biden, to create further division and fan the flames. His people are already doing it. They'll lap up the condolences and good wishes, and turn them into fuel for the fire.

But there is an objective reason why Democrats are saying that Trump 'threatens democracy', beyond mere rhetoric. And what reason is that? It was a Trump-inspired mob that broke into the Capital Building on Jan 6th 2021, desecrated the offices and chanted Hang Mike Pence in an attempt to prevent the transition of power. The slates of false electors and Republican lawyers working behind the scenes to prevent it. Trump to this day insists that the 2020 election was rigged, despite having lost 60 lawsuits that attempted to prove that. So there's no 'moral equivalence' here - it can't be said that 'both sides are at fault' if the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge the culpability and potential criminality of its nominee. Trump is a proven threat to democracy, and that's not just a Democrat talking point.

A gift link to a version of the article in the NY Times. Singer's point seems obviously correct, but then, Western culture is entirely predicated on production and consumption of material goods. Without a massive change in outlook and ethos, could society as a whole re-orient itself to the equitable distribution of goods and services so as to ameliorate the conditions in under-developed nations?

I suppose I can see the virtue of personally committing oneself to a life of extreme simplicity and abandonment of possessions beyond the bare necessities, but what kind of impact would an individual's actions have, in the absence of a mass movement? And wouldn't you need to have those ideals and disciplines instilled at a young age to turn your back on the material standards associated with living in developed cultures?

Kudos to Singer for bringing these points out, but what does he think the implications ought to be?

The Australian Broadcasting Commission is airing a two-part series, Retribution, beginning tonight (although it may be geo-blocked outside Australia).

"I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution." — Donald Trump

There has never been a US president like Donald Trump — and now he's back, this time with a detailed plan for his second coming.

Nearly four years after he was cast out by voters and accused of encouraging the American people to assault their own democracy with the attack on the US Capitol, the now convicted criminal wants to rebuild the country in his own image.

Ahead of the US election in November, Four Corners reporter Mark Willacy travels to Washington for the first of a special two-part series.

He sits down with White House insiders who witnessed the chaos of Trump's first term — some who continue to support his vision, and others Trump now considers "traitors".

Trump wants to reshape the pillars of American democracy and give himself more power. Willacy goes inside "Project 2025", the blueprint for a second Trump term and the army of recruits ready to carry out his orders.

Meanwhile strategy, security and defence experts warn of the impact another Trump presidency could have on America's institutions, its democracy, and the rest of the world.

Four Corners: Retribution Part 1 — The battle for democracy, will air from 8.25pm on Monday 15 July 2024 on ABC TV and ABC iview.

//

Trump continued, arguing: “Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy, Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy.”

It's been obvious from the outset that Trump projects all the evils he commits onto his enemies. What is really depressing is the ease with which it is believed, even by some here. It also really depressing that this episode has vastly increased his apparent momentum and a sense of the inevitability of his victory. It really is as if Armageddon looms.

Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it.

Do you think (as i recall being led to believe) that "sophisticated" Mahayana practitioners/thinkers sweep the reincarnation aspect of karma under the rug, ignore it? And yet, the Bodhisattva vow includes as you say all sentient beings, so how could they. — ENOAH

No, I don't. Many secular Buddhist followers reject it outright and regard re-birth as something that occurs moment-to-moment (which is true in one sense) but not life-to-life. But in my view, saṃsāra is intrinsic to Buddhism, it makes no sense without it. See Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Right! For anyone else, it might be a ‘sad commentary on the state of politics’. Or an ‘outrageous attack on democracy’. But for the campaign, it’s an opportunity!

‘The FBI has identified Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pa., as the suspected shooter at former president Donald Trump’s rally, in what the agency is calling an assassination attempt. The shooter was killed. Crooks is a registered Republican, according to the state’s voter status records.‘

Do animals deliberate and choose courses of action? Are there malevolent or evil monkeys or lions or wolverines? I'm inclined to doubt that. Which is one of the issues I have with 'karma theory'. According to Buddhist lore, one might be reborn in the animal realm as a consequence of animal behaviour (which is surely not hard to imagine, at least.) But once one is born into the animal realm, how does one 'generate merit' to warrant re-birth in the human realm?

According to the literature, there are various ways:

Natural Virtue and Innocence: Some Buddhist texts suggest that even animals can perform meritorious actions through their natural behavior. For example, acts of loyalty, protection, and nurturing by animals may generate positive karma. The inherent innocence and lack of malicious intent in many animals can also be seen as a form of merit.

Influence of Past Karma: Animals might still be influenced by the remnants of their past positive karma. This residual karma can sometimes lead to experiences or actions that accumulate merit. For instance, an animal might form a bond with a human who treats it kindly, thereby generating positive karma through that relationship.

Spiritual Interactions: In some stories, animals come into contact with enlightened beings which can lead to the generation of merit. For example, an animal that shows devotion to a Buddha or a Bodhisattva can accumulate merit through that act of devotion.

Bodhisattva Vows and Acts: Certain advanced practitioners (Bodhisattvas) take vows to liberate all sentient beings, including animals. Their compassionate actions towards animals can help uplift the animals' karmic conditions.

So while the notion of animals generating merit may seem unlikely given their perceived limitations, Buddhist teachings suggest pathways through which animals can improve their karmic conditions. Through natural virtuous behavior, the influence of past positive karma, interactions with enlightened beings, and the compassionate acts of Bodhisattvas, animals can accumulate merit and potentially achieve rebirth in more favorable realms, including the human realm.

Another point from Buddhist lore, is the comparative rarity of attaining human birth - hence the expression, especially in Tibetan Buddhism, 'this precious human birth'. Being born in the human realm, and hearing of the Buddha, is an opportunity that is exceedingly rare in cosmic time-scales.

Yeah only an assassination attempt on the leading Republican Presidential contender, missed by about a centimetre.

Yeah I'm watching CNN live coverage, there's a blurry photo of the shooter. It seems similar to the assassination attempt in Day of the Jackal - long-range shot with telescopic sight. CNN reports many in the audience began to turn on the media and boo them. I'm watching some of the remaining audience members shaking their fists at the camera.

I don't know the history of nominalism very well, so maybe somebody can illuminate this question with some quotes from the past — Gregory

To understand nominalism, it's best to understand how it originated and what it opposed. Its origin is usually assigned to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's razor'. And what was eliminated through said razor was belief in universals, which were central to the Aristotelian elements of scholastic philosophy, for example in Thomas Aquinas.

So what are universals? In Scholastic philosophy, 'universals' are abstracta that typify the shared properties or essences of particulars. These were said to be real by the scholastics, hence the term 'scholastic realism'. The reality of universals was central to debates about the nature of reality and knowledge. They argued that universals exist in three ways: ante res (before things, as ideas in the Divine Intellect), in rebus (in things, as the common attributes of individual objects e.g. the dogness of dogs, the tree-ness of trees), and post res (after things, as universal concepts such as 'dog' or 'tree'). In Aristotle 'nous' (intellect) is the faculty that grounds rational thought through the ability to grasp universals. This was distinct from sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory. The ability of the intellect to grasp universals is what enables the setting of definitions in a consistent and communicable way and explains how we can speak meaningfully about categories like 'dogness' or 'tree-ness' despite their instantiation in many diverse particulars. Realists believed that the ability to grasp universals is the unique prerogative and characteristic of reason.

See: The Theological Origins of Modernity, by M. A. Gillespie, published January 2008.

"Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment (as reason overcoming religion) on its head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological debate between Descarte and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions posed by nominalism, which according to Gillespie dismantled the rational Cosmos of medieval scholasticism and introduced (by way of the Franciscans) a fideistic God-of-pure-will, born out of a concern that anything less than such would undercut divine omnipotence."

Also The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, Jacques Maritain - a good summary of the role of universals in rational judgement.

The World of Universals, Bertrand Russell (from Problems of Philosophy).

@Paine - relates to the question raised in the thread on Gerson/Aristotle.

What is at the top of this top down hierarchy? Is the intelligible dependent on an intelligible being? What is the divine which constitutes an irreducible explanatory category? — Fooloso4

As you (and @Paine) will well know, in Plato, the source or upmost level of the hierarchy of being was 'the idea of the Good'. The Idea of the Good, primarily discussed in the Republic, is the highest and most important of the Forms, the ultimate principle that gives meaning and intelligibility to all other Forms and to the material world. The Good is the source of all reality and knowledge, for which the Sun is an analogy in the Allegory of the Cave. Plotinus, building on and reinterpreting Plato, posits "the One" (ta hen) as the ultimate principle, which is even beyond the Idea of the Good. The One is the absolute, transcendent source of all reality, beyond existence and discursive ideation, the ineffable and indescribable foundation from which everything emanates. In Plotinus' system, the One generates the Divine Mind (Nous), which contains the Forms, and from the Nous emanates the World Soul, which in turn gives rise to the material world.

Earlier in the thread you said: 'The gods' are, of course, those of the Greek pantheon, but from comparative religion, we learn that have much in common with the other Indo-European cultures, so there are parallels with the Indian pantheon. But in this case, they represent 'the divine'
— Wayfarer

What does it mean to conceive of the divine in personal terms? — Fooloso4

As you will also know, many elements of Platonism were absorbed into Christian theology by the early Greek-speaking theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and (Pseudo)Dionysius. It was also transformed so as to be compatible with Biblical revelation - no easy synthesis, and often with tension between them ('what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?') In any case, this is where elements of Plotinus philosophy of the One became identified with, or subsumed by, the God of Biblical revelation. Not that Plotinus would ever countenance that.

According to Dean Inge, the principle distinction between Plotinus and Christian mysticism is between Plotinus' 'henosis' (absorption into the One) and the Christian 'theosis' in which the soul is said to attain immortality whilst also maintaining an identity. (Even now, there are debates between Christians as to whether and in what sense God is personal - the distinction between 'theistic personalism and 'classical theism'.)

As far as 'the Gods' were concerned, in later neoplatonism they become identified as the Henads, intermediaries between the One and the human realm. Plotinus did not use that terminology, and like Plato tended to speak of 'the gods' as being symbolic of forces and powers. But scattered throughout the Platonic dialogues are references to paying obeisances or respect to the Gods. That doesn't make Plato "a believer" - perish the thought! - but I think it's reasonable to say that references to the Gods are a kind of shorthand for the divine, however conceived.

Odd that there are no reports of other injuries, though. You'd think that if a bullet grazed his ear, it must end up somewhere else, and he was sorrounded by spectators. //update - two deaths, the shooter and an audience member.//

I'm looking at the footage of him being hustled offstage by the Secret Service. He's loving it! The crowd loves it! Trump is repeatedly pumping a clenched fist in the air, the crowd are hysterical with anger and self-righteous vindication. Mistake to downplay it.

This factor is another wildcard in the election. The right are already preparing the ground for militias to take action to 'preserve democracy' (i.e. ensure that Trump is declared winner regardless of the outcome) through violence if necessary. This alleged assasination attempt, if that is what it is, will play right into their hands, right into Trump's 'martyr for the righteous cause' meme. Heaven help us.

I get that you connect your view of the 'theological' with a renunciation of the 'material — Paine

I’m interested in a specific philosophical question, which is the subject of the quote from Lloyd Gerson. The thread is about Lloyd Gerson’s interpretation of Aristotle, as was the passage I’ve been discussing. It’s a philosophical question about the role of universals in the forming of judgement and the sense in which that undercuts materialist theory of mind. I can’t see how that can be construed as ‘theology’.

It’s worth mentioning the origin of the term ‘karma’. It is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘kr-‘ which is ‘to do’ or ‘to make’, As a kind of common-sense heuristic it simply implies that ‘all actions have consequences’. It has its echoes in Western cultural history, notably the Biblical maxim ‘As you sow, so too shall you reap’ and also ‘actions becomes habits which form character, and character determines your fate’ which is associated with Aristotelian ethics. Interestingly the Sanskrit term ‘bhavana’ which is sometimes translated as ‘meditation’, actually means ‘becoming’, the implication being that meditation is the cultivation of mental states and virtues which lead to positive outcomes.

Of course in the Indian context, one has the horizon of future lives in this or other planes of being, in which the consequences of karma come to fruition (for good or for ill) whereas in today’s world, as there is no such conception, the classical concept of karma is meaningless. This is why from the perspective of classical Indian culture, modern culture is by and large nihilist.

Aristotle has it that the Prime Mover must be an intellectual nature. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As an aside, ‘intellectual’ is a very poor translation for what I take to be the intended meaning. ‘Intellectuals’ are stuffy fellows - they’re nearly always fellows - discussing arcane conceptions. It conveys none of the dynamism (a philosophical term that has its origin in Aristotle) that the word is really meant to convey. It’s more like the ‘pleroma’, a endless and timeless fount and source, the source of intelligibility which gives rise to everything and which reason is able to grasp (hence the ‘divinity of the intellect’ in Aristotelian philosophy.)

More to the point, from what I so far gather, modern metaphysical naturalism rejects the very notion of ontologically occurring purpose—this just as materialism/physicalism does. — javra

Because it seeks explanations in terms of physics, in which the notion of reason in the sense of ‘the reason for’ is excluded. Even the physicalist’s sense of ‘spirit’ is like that - it seeks to understand it as some kind of ethereal thing, rather than as being, which is what we are, not an object of analysis. ‘Too near for us to grasp’.

Plotinus is not talking about the relationship between knower and known — Paine

Indeed he is not, which is why it was not relevant to the question I raised, which was about that relationship.

'The gods' are, of course, those of the Greek pantheon
— Wayfarer

Are they? I would think that Plotinus would agree with Socrates' criticism of the gods in Euthyphro. — Fooloso4

When Plotinus says:

He will leave that behind, and choose another, the life of the gods — Ennead 1.2. 30, translated by Armstrong

which 'gods' are they? What does 'the life of the gods' refer to?

For I refer to all philosophers as divine.

Why would he consider philosophers, in particular, 'divine'?

In the Iliad Homer call salt divine (9.214) — Fooloso4

So if everything is divine, then the word means nothing. Is that the drift of the argument? That 'the divine' has no referent?

But they don’t cut it mate. I’ve said before, I respect your intelligence, I’ve learned things from you about philosophy of math (mainly, how little I know.) I have to say that you’re completely wrong about Trump, he’s malignant, mendacious, and a threat to the American Republic. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that, we have nothing further to discuss about it.

I could go on. — fishfry

You do.

I confess that my media diet is a little skewed to the right these days. — fishfry

And

The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people. — fishfry

The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.)

Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be.

Joe Stalin was an authoritarian. — fishfry

You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin? That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies? That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately.

If you happen to have a reference to Trump's influence on the GOP abandonment of Lankford's bill I'd appreciate it — fishfry

Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career

Former President Trump on Monday railed against the bipartisan border agreement and took aim at Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator, for his role in brokering the deal.

In an interview on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump denied endorsing Lankford’s candidacy in 2022 — despite doing so publicly — and did not rule out endorsing a primary opponent when Lankford is up for reelection in 2028. ...

Ahead of the bill text’s release, Trump had attacked the prospect of the legislation, branding it as a political victory for Democrats ahead of the 2024 election — a message he repeated in Monday’s interview.“This is a gift to Democrats, and this, sort of, is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans. That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election, so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history,” Trump said. — Feb 2024

As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue.

I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian. — fishfry

And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies. The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions. But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom.

Recall a few posts back, you said:

What I am trying to underline in the discussion is the particular way Plotinus offers a solution to your thesis — Paine

I have been arguing that the passage you referred to from the Enneads at that point is specifically about the distinction between 'civic virtue' and those seeking to attain 'likeness to the gods'. That passage addresses that distinction quite clearly. Hence my digression into the role of 'the divine' and revelation in the metaphysics of Greek philosophy in answer to Fooloso4's question.

Whereas, the thesis you were responding to, was Gerson's paraphrase of an argument in De Anima, to wit:

In thinking, the intelligible object or form is present in the intellect, and thinking itself is the identification of the intellect with this intelligible.

And that is a reference to the knowledge of forms, as represented Aristotle's hylomorphic (matter-form) philosophy: that the intellect (nous) is what grasps or perceives the forms of things, which is that by which we know what particulars truly are. I take this principle as basic to the epistemology of hylomorphism.

Furthermore, the principle of the 'union between the knower and the form of the known' becomes a dominant theme in ancient and medieval philosophy. There are many references to this in online digests of Aquinas' philosophy (e.g. here and here.)

Now, so far, what I've said above, I would regard as general knowledge, and not requiring specialist knowledge of the Greek texts.

So far so good?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. For the last several posts, I've been addressing the issue of the interpretation of the paragraph from the Enneads that you presented, which I think I have done. The additional point I made to fooloso4 about Leo Strauss was in respect of the broader issue of the relationship between philosophy and revelation and the bearing that might have on interpreting Plotinus. It can be taken as a footnote.

Gift link to today’s 5,000 word NY Times editorial, Trump is Unfit to Lead.

Some excerpts:

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead. …

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists, abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty. …

On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office. He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center. …

Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for… American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope. …

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.

His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him, “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense secretary, said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.”

Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

And a shorter but essentially similar OP from the LA TImes:

...Trump is the only man in the presidential race manifestly unworthy of holding a position of power, and has no business ever returning to the White House. If the GOP had any decency left, its members would be discussing whether to dump Trump for a candidate who isn’t out to bulldoze democratic institutions in favor of autocracy.

Voters should resist viewing this contest through the politics-as-usual lens of past elections. This November is not about dueling personalities, middle-of-the-road policy differences, or as some might see it, an 81-year-old man being the lesser of two evils compared with a 78-year-old man. It’s nothing short of a referendum on our 248-year democracy, and a choice between a trustworthy public servant who upholds American values and a serial liar who wants to push the country into authoritarianism.

Could Karma be the expression of basic physical laws of motion emerging/permeating into the sphere of sophisticated societal dynamics? — Benj96

I don't think so. There used to be a lot of talk about Buddhism being a 'scientific religion' in the early 20th c based on the idea that karma was a kind of 'scientific law', but I think that is groundless. Nevertheless, I implicitly accept karma as the basis of my own ethical outlook, with the important caveat that it can easily lead to fatalism and finger-pointing. Karma should only ever be regarded as a regulative principle in my view.

No reader of Natural Right and History would think that is what just got said. — Paine

Well, I'm not among them. I'm too old to go into either Heidegger or Strauss in any depth, I only mentioned it to @Fooloso4 because it is through his posts that I've become familiar with Strauss at all, and I think the section I linked to about Strauss' view of the relationship of philosophy and revelation is germane.

FWIW, I think 'revelation' is equated with 'revealed religion', thence 'religious dogma' and automatically discounted on those grounds. Whereas I think there's a religious dimension to Greek philosophy, which is neglected on that basis.

Incidentally, and apropos of Leo Strauss, I find a section in his SEP entry on Philosophy and Revelation:

On Strauss’s reading, the Enlightenment’s so-called critique of religion ultimately also brought with it, unbeknownst to its proponents, modern rationalism’s self-destruction. Strauss does not reject modern science, but he does object to the philosophical conclusion that “scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge” because this “implies a depreciation of pre-scientific knowledge.” As he put it, “Science is the successful part of modern philosophy or science, and philosophy is the unsuccessful part—the rump” (JPCM, p. 99). Strauss reads the history of modern philosophy as beginning with the elevation of all knowledge to science, or theory, and as concluding with the devaluation of all knowledge to history, or practice.

Something with which I'm in agreement. I wonder if he had any professional contact with Mircea Eliade, who was a peer at the University of Chicago during his tenure, and from whom a lot of what I've learned about comparative religion was drawn.