I certainly feel like Nietzsche adhered to a very specific metaphysical framework, one which determines his opinions/valuations on things like Christianity, democracy, etc.

His passionate criticisms of these phenomena, and related things, would only seem to make sense from some privileged standpoint. He felt he won this Truth precisely by freeing himself, in a hard-fought battle, from the dominant perspective of his (our?) time, which of course he traced back to Christianity.

As for my very underdeveloped and largely intuitive views on the matter, I appreciate the 'truth' of perspectivism but also feel that some perspectives are more revelatory than others. Seems like different ways of approaching phenomena can disclose different aspects of their being, so no Truth with a capital T, but that concession need not lead to the reduction of truth(s) entirely to relations of power (although that often seems a significant factor in what passes for truth in a particular social/historical era) or the personal whims of autonomous subjects somehow locked in their own private worlds with their separate truths.

I'll admit that I may be strawmanning these positions, albeit it unintentionally, especially the latter one. It's an interesting topic for sure.

This is probably a really dumb question, but doesn't the claim that notions of truth are social constructs imply that the person making such a claim has somehow attained a perspective that lies outside of that (those) construct(s)?

Please excuse my naivety. I often feel like Nietzsche's philosophy falls into this trap. He was obviously intelligent enough to recognize this paradox (if indeed there is one), but I'm not sure if he was ever able to resolve it.

Edit: I hadn't initially read deathbarracuda's post right above mine, but it appears as though we have the same fundamental question.

Ha! That sort of sincerity, stepping away at the apex of power after lying to get there, would be some sort of Nietzschean overman-type thing. Not going to happen, but what he would lose in current power and influence would be compensated for posthumously as indicative of greatness of soul. Oh yeah, I do recall some conversation about romanticism a few months ago. Old habits die hard.

I don't know if Trump is a symptom or a cause, although I suspect the former. Only a profoundly confused electorate could elect someone so manifestly incapable of doing the job he lucked into, and then continue to stand by him when his manifest incompetence and mendacity become more obvious every day. — Wayfarer

Wow, it's been a long time since I've checked this thread and a lot has transpired since then. I don't even recall much of the previous discussion, and I'm too lazy to look back over it, but to the point you made here, Wayfarer, I think there are other relevant issues to consider.

The choice between the Republican 'establishment' and the Democratic Party as it currently exists was one which left many citizens in the US--specifically those white middle and lower class voters--with two bad alternatives. Speaking generally, the globalist/militaristic neoconservatives seem to have much more in common ideologically with the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama than they do with the values of non-elites of European ancestry living in the US. Nor could traditional 'small government' Republicans, fixated as ever on continued tax cuts for the wealthy and the elimination of as many social programs as possible, create a message which resonated deeply with people struggling financially, 'spiritually,' even physically.

On the Democratic side of things, the focus on identity politics surely alienated many white working class voters. This voting bloc (especially white men over the age of, say, 30) has been conspicuously left out among the groups which Democrats claim to represent: blacks, Latinos, Muslims, young people, etc. In fact, Democrats make no attempt to conceal their giddiness at the demise of this group's political influence. Their narrative has been more focused on racial (and sexual) identity than about finding common ground between white working class voters and people of color in a similar economic predicament.

So where should these people have turned, if they truly felt unrepresented by the only relevant political parties? Many of them obviously ended up supporting a manipulative blowhard like Trump, unfortunately, since he was the only candidate capable of connecting with them on a deep emotional level. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders was able to do that too. But dude's an idiot, and even worse a horrible human being, but neither of the viable alternatives (Republicans focused on helping the rich at the expense of the poor as usual, and Democrats seemingly focused on helping everyone BUT white middle and lower class citizens) made a genuine attempt to address some of the legitimate grievances this group may have had, and those largely being due to the economic and social policies of the past 40-50 years.

Add to those conditions the continued dumbing down of the populace through mindless entertainment and consumerism during that same stretch, in addition to a large bloc of immigrants (many of) whom seem to come here strictly for economic opportunities rather than to adopt some more ethereal American cultural identity--thus creating more resentment from many native-born Americans who feel affronted by this snub--and you have a situation which was ripe for a tough-talking chauvinistic douche like Trump, i.e. someone without a conscience or a sense of higher purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement, to manipulate this group as malleable material for his own purposes.

Now of course there are racists and xenophobes in the US who soaked up his hateful rhetoric, but I would maintain that there are also many Trump supporters who voted for (and continue to support) him who did so out of desperation and as a vote of no confidence in 'the system' as it currently stands. So yes, I think his support has at least as much to do with particular social/historical/political circumstances in the US than it does with people really believing that he's a wise statesmen who's going to lead this country to some sort of new golden era with his broad vision and foresight.

Anyhow, it seems as though he's at least partly moved in the direction of the 'establishment' over the past couple months, so I guess most educated and 'reasonable' people would consider that a good thing. I felt that during our last conversation my explanations of Trump's support being largely due to the failures of the existing parties was equated with my personal support of him and/or his policies. That's not true and I hope the separate issues won't be conflated this time around. It's a somewhat nuanced position, admittedly, and speaking out against (what I feel are) the equally narrow visions of Dems and Reps does not necessarily mean one likes Trump. One can dislike both Trump AND his many political opponents.

At best IMO he represents a 'fuck you' to a corrupt and self-serving political and economic system (and of course the two are intimately intertwined) and a corresponding wake up call to the representatives of this establishment to shift their priorities towards the average people who've been neglected during the last few decades. But sure, the risk here is that he's going to be much worse than the previous administrations and may even get us all killed.

These are my intuitions on the matter. To repeat, I feel that he tapped into a reservoir of resentment that he clearly did not create out of nothing due to his brilliance or charisma or rhetorical skill. He shaped it a bit, misdirected it no doubt, but he did not create it. That honor goes to the incompetence and shortsightedness of the previous few administrations, along with global trends which even they were powerless to counteract.

Hope all is well.

Dreyfus also played an important role in making Heidegger (at least somewhat) accessible to analytically-inclined American philosophers, thus beginning a sort of fruitful engagement between previously antagonistic camps. That was a significant achievement in my admittedly biased opinion, and there are now quite a few of his former students spread throughout the US who are continuing what he started, appropriating important insights drawn from Heidegger--for example those which are relevant to debates surrounding artificial intelligence--while leaving out what many (not me) would consider inessential aspects of his thought, specifically those which betray his undeniable anti-modern and anti-democratic perspective.

As I see it, one need not privilege Being or Nothing but can instead see that the two are intimately and necessarily related. If that interconnection is understood, then I feel that we can joyfully affirm life (Being) despite having a vivid awareness of its ultimate end in annihilation and nothingness. This is the general outlook and disposition that I take to be characteristic of thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger, and possibly even ancient sages like Heraclitus and Lao Tzu. It's a position that, to me, lies far beyond the either/or of optimism and pessimism, since these terms are somewhat superficial in light of the profundity or intensity of life. Another sort of evasion is to retreat from this discomforting feeling into all-encompassing solutions and explanations, even those of a seemingly more courageous and realistic approach.

As I see it, when the precariousness of 'what is' is grasped--rather than evaded through wishful thinking--then beings can become even more meaningful to us. It's one possible approach to our predicament. Of course this insight can and often does lead to paralysis and despair, especially when it involves an obsessive fixation upon our own death, which I know from firsthand experience. Perhaps that epiphany is a necessary condition for a more meaningful and engaged life. I guess I just don't see why this honest and clear-sighted understanding of life's fragility, it's constant hovering over the abyss of nothingness, must necessarily end in an outlook of despair.

I think one of Heidegger's primary aims (and lasting contributions) is to free us from many of the guiding assumptions we have about ourselves--which at the same time means about Being (more accurately: the Being of beings)--and, by doing so, open us to a new conception of the way in which we exist. This radical reassessment of our way of being can be therapeutic and affirmative, and it can be such without smuggling in comforting metaphysical illusions. But first things first: we should get as clear as possible about who we are and how we exist. Fundamental ontology, as the specific analysis of human existence, lays the groundwork for the larger ontological inquiry of Being more generally. A return to the question of Being can only proceed by moving away from interpreting ourselves in terms of subjectivity and towards being-in-the-world. I think Heidegger, despite his many personal failings, makes a compelling case in this most important matter. And Nothingness plays an important role in this

To lay it out very quickly, by reconceiving human existence in terms of Dasein, as a sort of no-thing-ness in which beings are cleared or 'lit up', the dread of death and Nothingness can dissipate a bit. With this shift in self-understanding we can ultimately affirm life and (to paraphrase Heidegger) be thankful that a world (Being) is at all, that beings are rather than nothing, that we ourselves are and yet hardly know who we are, and hardly know all of this. On the other hand, if we conceive of ourselves as encapsulated egos locked inside our heads and constantly threatened by a hostile 'external' world, then the appropriate response would likely be terror and a preference for Nothing or non-existence over Being (not sure why I'm capitalizing--added affect I guess).

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your position.

I finally have a little bit of time to address some of these very interesting points you brought up.

I don't think that the practise of criticizing is as clear as you make it sound. To take your example, one can simply say that the dish is lacking something, "it doesn't taste the way I think it should", without even being capable of identifying the exact problem. There is no clear idea of "how it should taste", or of what is needed to make it taste that way. To determine that something is missing, and to determine what it is that is missing are two distinct procedures. It is the same in the example of sickness, the person who is sick may be able to say "I am sick", without having any capacity to diagnose the illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I continue to think that in each of these cases the understanding takes its measure from some notion of wholeness or completeness, regardless of how difficult this may be to pinpoint or articulate. The acknowledgment of privation is what seems to motivate criticism of any sort from the get go. A general awareness of an absence (dish doesn't taste right) and a diagnosis of its specific cause (too much salt) seem precursors to the ultimate goal, which, at the very least, would appear to be the bringing about of an improved condition, i.e. something 'better'. We may obviously get stalled at some point in the procedure, even the first as you pointed out, but we rarely content ourselves with remaining at that stage if we can avoid it. It rather appears as though the entire process is guided in advance by our understanding of things like optimal health or a tasty dish, and if we were completely lacking in some vague notion or intuition concerning these things, then we wouldn't even be able to say that we were sick, or that a dish was somehow off.

Applying this to criticism of Donald Trump. We feel strongly that he's bad for America (general awareness), and the reason for this is a combination of his abrasive and deceptive personality along with xenophobic and reactionary policies (specific). We're motivated to criticize him because we care about our country, and we feel we should be led by a president who embodies great moral character and a more compassionate and inclusive vision of this nation. We feel that vision is consistent with our founding principles (even more specific) whereas those of Trump are not. Again, the last movement would actually appear to guide the criticism from the start. In any case they appear to be intertwined, as my 'cynicism mixed with romanticism' description was trying to convey. So yeah, I guess I'll double down here for the moment until I feel that criticism need not include any notion at all of privation or possible improvement.

The matter is this. Moral principles are very difficult to understand logically. Values must be grounded in ends. The end is what makes the value a "true" value, it is validated by the end. Ends must be clearly defined, or principles laid out whereby an end may be determined as good or bad, or else there are no true values whatsoever. You say "truthfulness is a value", but you do not support that logically, with reasons why truthfulness should be valued. Without these reasons, the claim is hollow. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so truthfulness should be valued not as an end in itself, but because it contributes to the building up of trust and legitimacy in society, which in turn serve as the foundation for the ultimate end, which is social order and stability. Actually an even greater end would be the happiness of the individuals who make up that society. When trust is eroded through the use of lies by political leaders then legitimacy withers away, and when legitimacy is lacking then social stability is threatened. Without social stability then other ends, like economic prosperity, seem unattainable. If we start by positing individual freedom as the ultimate end or goal, then it would seem like something more akin to an anarchic 'state of nature' would be preferable, with an overemphasis on public security and stability threatening freedom and autonomy. Either way though I don't see how truth-telling could be disadvantageous to the social order. I'm sure you'll have plenty of counter-examples.

Now of course the likes of Plato and Machiavelli and Nietzsche (in other words men much smarter than myself) extolled the efficacy of lies and deception, and precisely in the name of order and stability. But even they felt there must at least be the appearance of truth. Why is that? Why the human proclivity against being lied to? I'm not sure. For me I feel it may have a lot to do with pride and ego. The fact that you lied to me makes me think you don't respect me, that you'd like to manipulate me for your own nefarious ends, etc. I recall the experience of my own enthusiastic patriotism giving way first to sadness and then to anger. I was lied to. I was ready to go join the military and possibly give my life for these noble ideals and lofty values I'd imbibed since childhood (through schooling, movies, etc.), and then to find out they were largely bullshit? That was a pretty devastating experience.

Anyhow I feel that much of the righteous indignation from those on the Left over Trump's habitual lying can be traced to the sense that he has zero respect for anything they value, and that he'll gladly lie in order to roll back any prior achievements won by progressives. So it's not his lying per se, but the aim of his lies which is the more important issue. Obviously those on the political Right (generally speaking) will rationalize away Trump's lies (@Agustino), or, more likely, refuse to even acknowledge them as such. If the roles were reversed and Hillary were in office, then the situation would be the opposite--like the Tea Party's unrelenting attacks on Obama-- and we'd have one side failing to see lies as lies and the other seeing almost everything as a lie. Look where we're at with this right now. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that violence and chaos are likely to come about more and more in coming weeks, months, years. There's a complete lack of trust, a sense that our government is illegitimate, and intimations of civil war sometime in the future as this nation hardens into two hostile camps with radically different worldviews.

So here is an example of criticism without an alternative proposal. I can criticise the mores of our society. I can say truth is becoming devalued. I can say that the entire moral structure, which was upheld in days long past, by the church, is becoming devalued. I can say that we take morality for granted, as if it is some naturally occurring thing, through the forces of evolution, and we've lost track of the fact that morality is really created artificially, requiring effort, strength of will. In our society we just assume that people will instinctively act morally, we have evolved to be like this. I have absolutely no idea or proposal for how to fix this. That's way beyond me. I can see a problem, and analyze it. And as I alluded to in the last passage, I can claim that it has to do with a loss of the philosophical mindset, but this is just deferring to a further problem. All I am doing here is working to identify the problem, similar to what Socrates did. I am providing no suggestions for resolution of the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good points, but again, there seems to be an implicit understanding of an end (some general good) at work in the criticism. You want to fix the problem even if you're unable to. That desire for a better society--which is afflicted at the moment with rampant deception and the overall breakdown of morality--would appear to drive the criticism. The intuition that something's gone awry gives way to a diagnosis suggestive of possible solutions. Moral actions are good. Truthfulness is good. These are prerequisites of a stable society, in which other goods like freedom and the creation of wealth can thrive. You know, the old 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' themes which serve as this country's stated principles, and the securing of which is the sine qua non of government. How about start being honest? And start behaving morally? Those would be possible solutions in light of the criticisms, and I'd imagine one could offer a pretty compelling argument as to why these would be conducive to the public (and individual) good, as understood and outlined in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Regarding the example of Socrates, which I acknowledged to be a really good one (and still think so), well, even he seems intent upon bringing about some 'improved' condition in his interlocutors. He may not leave them with specific knowledge concerning things like justice, or love, or friendship, or even 'knowledge' itself, but at the very least they've been disabused of the notion that they know what they don't know. That could subsequently lead one to a state of humility characterized by an awareness of their ignorance, and this is vastly superior to an arrogance grounded in unwitting ignorance. This shift represents an improved condition of the soul, which has grown in wisdom if not in knowledge, and what could be more important than that? Clearly many feel the opposite is the case and that 'ignorance is bliss,' or some such, and that even the strongest, the most able, the most courageous among us conceal certain things from themselves out of necessity. Incidentally, this would translate well into a government's role in society being in part to shield citizens from unhelpful or even 'deadly' truths; I know many neocons inclined towards this opinion. It's definitely a timely topic right now in this 'post-truth' age.

That sounds like a play on Heidegger's brief biographical sketch of Aristotle: He was born, he worked, and he died.

I'm assuming he was trying to shield philosophy from being entirely reduced to the personal experiences of philosophers, or to explain their insights through contextual details of their historical situation. Reminds me of my old neocon teachers, who felt a strong aversion to most secondary literature on the major figures in philosophy. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle are smarter than you, they'd say, and they'll provide you with all the relevant context you'll need.

I always liked the story about him, upon hearing that a young PhD student had dropped out of school after realizing he had nothing important to contribute to his field, suggesting that for that alone the young man should be given his degree.

Interesting answers. Good to get different perspectives on such an important matter.

I'm biased against narrow notions of success that are inculcated into us and unconsciously adopted. So I say you should continue doing what you're doing for the time being. Nothing at all wrong with living with your mom and working at a job you enjoy. Now if you were married and/or had children to provide for then it would be a much different story. But I'm assuming you're young and have a certain amount of freedom that I find enviable.

You don't seem like the type of person whose ambition is driven by material considerations. That's great IMO. Why not pursue independent scholarship outside of the confines of academia? @Thorongiland @The Great Whateveroffered some great information on the practical aspect of grad school. If you don't choose that path for one reason or another (good reasons given for not going that route here) that doesn't mean you can't continue to pursue your interest in philosophy on your own.

Scale back your desires, realize that your time is the most important thing you have, and think these things through for a few more years. Maybe you'll develop a more secure sense of your abilities and move forward towards a legitimate career, or what's respected as such these days. And if not, hey, that's fine too. When you get into your thirties then maybe it'll be time to lock down a decent paying job if you have any aspirations of finding a 'partner' and possibly beginning a family.

X-)

At least you've read the guy and have specific criticisms to offer!

Well, when Trump proposes to implement policies designed to prevent the free press from doing it's job, and starts jailing dissidents, or worse, having them killed, then I'll be the first person to admit my mistaken belief that he's been subjected to a level of hyperbole and double-standards unmatched in recent history.

I'm not going to defend Putin. My concern at this stage is with my country, more specifically, with the many problems and issues we're facing. The deflection here is partly coming from the media in their attempt to equate Trump with Putin, or Hitler, and the motivation for doing so being in part to withdraw attention from the very (oligarchic) interests which have decimated the working class, and which he's claiming to combat.

And for me this last one is the biggest fear, i.e. the legitimate grievances of the lower and middle classes will be associated (and discredited) with the person of Donald Trump. I do see that as the preferred tactic of the vested 'establishment' interests at this point: associating any criticism with racism, or tyranny, or the buffoonery of Trump, etc. So I think it's important for us to make that distinction between Trump and the average Americans who voted for him, and who've been fucked over. I will also readily admit my own background being from a lower-middle class family, and not pretend that this doesn't influence my perception of things.

Not sure where you guys are from, but it's extremely difficult for many of us here in the US to live a decent life. I'm not at all materialistic (I do practice what I preach in this regard), but to rent an apartment, get health insurance, buy food, pay off student loan debt, etc. makes one feel hopeless. I have a decent-paying job (not great, but not horrible either and above the average) working 50 hours a week, and it's still incredibly hard. Contrast that average case with the wealth and affluence of a certain small segment of American society and yeah, it's seems like the system has been rigged.

You guys can keep harping on how much better or morally superior the US is to China or Russia, but the fact remains that the richest .01% of the population here (around 16,000 people) own as much wealth as the bottom 256,000,000 Americans combined. Spin that however you'd like, but in my estimation that's an unjust and completely untenable arrangement. I'll end the rambling and whining and let you all get back to attacking Trump as the biggest threat to the existing world order.

Agreed. But I say we should also admit that Trump's lunacy has stirred up a corresponding willingness to twist 'facts' amongst many media members. He's shaken things up to such an extent that the old rules no longer seem to hold. Some reporters have even admitted as much lately, suggesting that any feigned 'objectivity' in reporting on Trump should give way to an impassioned defense of our democracy that he's threatening. That's the sort of honest partisanship that I admire.

But it's not that specific evil acts committed are, or have been, on the 'same' level, but rather that the perception that the US is the 'good guy' and always fights for freedom and justice and democracy is largely a myth. I wish this weren't the case. The relevance of this, as I see it, is that Trump, the man rightly accused of being a pathological liar, actually told the truth on this important topic. And when he did so, the defenders of 'truth' and 'facts' came out and tried to spin the old deceptions. It was a bit ironic. Again, this analysis of Trump's is not typical right-wing claptrap, but more aligned with radical leftist critiques like those found in Chomsky, Zinn, et al.

I would add further the massive deception propagated by many in the mainstream media that IF you voted for Trump you must be a racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc. That's a subtle and sinister form of psychological manipulation. There were many issues that motivated people to vote for the guy (including those mentioned for some), and reduce these to some perceived moral failing was a dishonest attempt to deflect attention away from the massive accumulation of wealth and power amongst a small percentage of Americans over the past 30-40 years. Not ALL media ignored factoring in real economic (and other) issues, but many did. And yeah I'm going to be accused of a sort of paranoia bordering on insanity here, but do the lower and middle classes own the media and try to control the flow of information?

And the notion of post-truth originated on the Left, philosophically at least with Po-Mo's like Foucault who equated 'truth' with power. I don't agree with that extreme view, but I will admit the bit of 'truth' it contains and not dismiss it and assume that truth isn't often tough to pin down. I do believe there can be multiple 'truths' or perspectives which can uncover different aspects of a given thing. That doesn't mean there's no truth, or that it's entirely arbitrary, but in the arena of politics especially opinion and perspective can be shaped through discourse. You'd at least acknowledge that, wouldn't you? If we do acknowledge that, and the further idea that politics is largely about power and influence (often masked behind notions on justice), then cynicism and vigilance become justified.

I don't know, Wayfarer, I respect where you're coming from and do believe you're genuine in your concerns. No question at all about that IMO. I disagree, I think, with your very clear partisanship in this. You hate Donald Trump, and rightfully so, but this has blinded you to the propaganda you're being fed. I see propaganda coming at me from both sides, whereas you see truth on one side and 'alternative facts' or 'post-truth' on the other. Not that simple.

Hahaha...yeah, I may very well be more open to the idea of multiple truths being possible in the realm of politics than the average partisan, who will basically see what he or she wants to see. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior (if not perfect) to the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by almost everyone who participates.

Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion is somehow

That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of people who simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter.

If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I--not to mention partisan media hacks--ave some privileged perspective on Truth . So it my not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days. Truth has rarely factored in to politics. 'Post truth' is often used as a way to discredit those who disagree with your view. Now fake news is a different matter altogether. It's not an anything goes or there's one truth scenario. More nuanced than that.

Hahaha...yeah, I may very well be more open to the possibility of multiple truths in the realm of politics than the average partisan, who will basically see what he or she wants to see. And only that. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior or more righteous (if not perfect) than the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by everyone who participates. I apply my cynicism equally instead of selectively.

That selective application of standards is understandable to a certain extent. Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's largely true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion somehow shifts. I think being aware of this human tendency, first and foremost within ourselves, is an important step on the road to anything moving away from self-deceit and towards something like 'wisdom.'

That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of which simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter. We've had 'alternative facts' for a very long time.

If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I have some privileged perspective on Truth and moral goodness. May not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days as we're fed misinformation from all angles.

So Trump has created a situation where if you speak out against him, you are, by default, speaking for the establishment. There's long standing suspicion and disappointment in the establishment. It hasn't been that long since we were talking about California being a failed state, democracy had failed there, how long would it be before the same was true of the US in general, etc. — Mongrel

Not necessarily, although it does seem to me that this is the way many people think nowadays. We should also be cautious of the contrary idea that any criticism of the 'establishment' should be seen as tacit support for Trump. That's not the case either, and I have a strong aversion to this false dichotomy that's been perpetuated. It does create a strange sort of cognitive dissonance in which the seemingly natural tendency to understand my enemy's enemy as my friend is called into question.

I struggle with this at times, and I have to admit that my deep dislike of the political and economic status quo in the US has probably made me much more sympathetic to Trump on occasion than I should be. I know he's a narcissist and a pathological liar, but I've come to see many 'progressives' in an equally unfavorable light over the past year or so. And I've always hated the Republican establishment. The genuine 'good guys' are extremely hard to spot these days. To hell with both sides.

@Metaphysician Undercover I rather like the example of Socrates to help explain what you're getting at. Makes a bit of sense, although it does seem that his type of intellectual humility is so exceedingly rare that he represents the exception to the rule. But you've shown that it's at least possible to critique without offering anything else. Kind of surprised I didn't think of his example.

I'll chew on the rest for a bit and maybe respond later if needed. Thanks for the contribution.

The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that. — Wayfarer

Missed this earlier. This is an interesting issue which seems to have a long philosophical history going back to Plato's Sophist. Let's not forget Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations.

Anyhow I think it can be a little more complex than that. Let's give Trump a charitable reading and take a quick example. It was a fact that more more people turned out for Obama's inauguration(s) than Trump's. That's a fact. But it's also a fact that the city of Washington DC is over 90% Democrat, which would seem to explain, at least in part, the difference in numbers. Now by zeroing in on certain facts over others, a false impression can be given of Trump's lack of popularity. The media conveniently neglected to explain the possible reasons for the discrepancy in their earnest desire to portray Trump as an unpopular president.

Is the omission of relevant facts similar to the use of 'alternative facts'? Maybe the use of these things could be understood as the bringing forth of certain facts which were left out of accounts given by anti-Trump media partisans. This type of thing happens quite a bit, and it's not confined to the tactics of one political party. The most obvious cases involve taking quotes out of context and presenting the person who said them in the most damaging way possible. That's a subtle form of deception which lies by omission. Now when referring to things like climate change, or simple matters like whether Trump denying he said something that he's on tape saying, then yeah, of course, the notion of alternative facts is absurd. If that's what his camp has in mind then let's mock and ridicule that as much as possible.

I do think it's indisputable that the American mainstream media (I hate using that term since it reminds me of the pejorative way in which Rush Limbaugh and other conservative blowhards used it) does not like Donald Trump. Point blank. They'll do whatever they can to make him look foolish and to discredit him in any way possible. They pick out a certain set of facts--invariably the ones which cast him in the worst possible light--and ignore or gloss over others. Trump's team will obviously gather those neglected facts and make them available to the American public as 'alternative facts' which aren't necessarily false per se, but may have been omitted by anti-Trump media sources. Both sides are trying to shape the way the public perceives Trump.

Furthermore, facts (excluding the most trivial) always take place within a particular context and are always understood through the prism of a set of guiding values and assumptions. They can often be interpreted from multiple angles, and these are generally guided by our biases. I watched a short political debate on youtube last night which confirmed the notion we perceive the world in ways colored by our values and beliefs. It was a typical Republican vs. Democrat debate, very predictable as usual, but what interested me most was the viewer commentary. Conservatives felt the Republican dominated the debate while progressives felt the exact opposite. So people of both political persuasions watched the same thing but saw something radically different. That must mean that truth and perception and facts aren't always simple and straightforward matters.

And I say all of this as someone perhaps deluded into thinking that truth, while elusive, is far more important than political ideology. I dislike both sides of this battle, but I'll also try my best to not to let an emotional hatred of Trump (or his opponents) blind me from the 'fact' that he's been under constant attack that's been at times unfair. Hillary didn't receive this treatment from respectable media, and Obama sure as hell didn't as the press largely fawned over him during his tenure as president.

I do not agree with this point. We can quite readily criticize, and point out what is bad, without offering an alternative, what is better. There is no need to propose a better system in order to point to the defects of the existing system. In fact, that seemed to be Trump's mo, how he got elected, by pointing to deficiencies, claiming they would be fixed, without proposing any real solutions. However, the issue is that there is a big difference between pointing to deficiencies, and actually moving to resolve the problems pointed to. The latter does require the idealized "how it should be", the "something better". Now trump may be in a position where he can actually start to dismantle systems which are seen to have deficiencies. Without the "something better", this may be a real problem. Dismantling destroys the good along with the bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

But what standard is being used to guide the criticism? And what's the purpose of criticizing in the first place if not to point to an alternative? People who are indifferent to politics don't engage in that sort of activity. Also, it would appear as though the very notion of defectiveness implies its opposite, just as diagnosing sickness implies an understanding of health, and criticizing what is bad does so by virtue of an understanding of what is good. To use a culinary analogy, if I say a dish you prepared is too salty, then I don't need to come out and tell you to put less salt in it next time. It's implied, and clearly so. The same goes for suggesting that (e.g.) a certain trade deal hurts American workers. The implication is that we should opt out of that arrangement.

Now, if you feel that Trump is worse than Obama (and not just different), then please tell me how you arrived at this position without employing language laden with moral--or political or economic or cultural--value judgments or preferences. Truthfulness is a value which we admire, as are things like selflessness and compassion. But if they're not 'better' than their opposites, then what's your issue with Trump? In fact, why is destroying or dismantling systems wrong? Even the use of this sort of language harbors implicit moral judgments within this context. You really don't feel as though basic moral assumptions and guiding ethical principles are at work in your negative assessment of this man, or the agenda that he's proposing?

To me this is such an obvious point that I feel I must be misunderstanding your position. I mean this sincerely--I'm not primarily concerned with winning an argument here but really want to understand how one engaging in criticism need not do so from any (implied or explicit) notion of better or worse. I'll gladly concede if you can help me gain a better understanding of my own views, especially if they're flawed. I see this as an entirely separate and general issue (having to do with guiding values and assumptions being a necessary component of human existence) than the specific ascendancy of Trump to political power. Maybe the two are being conflated a bit, and we have such a vehement hatred of the man that we're loath to admit that he too could be guided by similar considerations.

Finally, Trump did propose some solutions to what he perceives to be the nation's problems. Pulling the US out of unfair trade agreements, controlling immigration, reigning in the ability of moneyed interests to lobby politicians, etc. You and I may disagree with these solutions, obviously, but he did articulate an agenda (in rudimentary form) which deviated sharply from that of his predecessors. He outlined how he felt America could be improved, or, as he put it, made great again, and he did so by way of juxtaposition with the existing state of affairs. This was done out of an understanding of what he feels would be better, or more advantageous, for the citizens of the US, or at least a certain segment of that citizenry. So rather than serving as a counter-example to my claim, his case emphatically confirms it. That's how I see it at least.

@WayfarerWell there's defintiely something to be said for your reasoned belief that Donald Trump represents an existential threat to the very survival of Western civilization, and that even the imperfect system we had is far superior to complete destruction. I don't see it in such stark terms (I don't think he's the embodiment of complete chaos and evil that he's being made out to be by the press), but I'll be vigilantly opposed to him when necessary. The most hopeful view I can take is as I mentioned before--that's he's an agent of decomposition within a rotten system that will force us to reassess certain fundamental assumption about ourselves and our civilization. If that happens, something good could result in the long run. It is a bit of a gamble though.

Regarding Bannon, I'm getting around to watching interviews and reading anything relevant to him. I may actually harbor some sympathy for his alleged views aiming at the destruction of the state. Not going to lie, Nietzsche's condemnation of the state (The New Idol) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra resonates with me a great deal. Look beyond the state, my brothers, where a slow suicide calls itself 'life,' and towards the arrival of the overman... (to paraphrase)

Perfectly agree! America was founded on the principles of the European enlightenment, freedom of religion, and so on. As it happens, the founding values were mainly embodied in the Christian religion. I actually believe that there are institutional shortcomings with Christian orthodoxy itself, but that is well out of scope of this thread. But in any case, the US system is one of several - another being the Westminster system of the UK and Australia - which does embody humanistic principles and retains some elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which the concept of 'human rights' originated (which are conspicuosly absent from Chinese communism.) — Wayfarer

It's an interesting debate for sure. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the superiority of our Western values to those of the Chinese. I think they'd argue that while ours place a heavy emphasis on (theoretically) autonomous personhood, we also pass over the intimate way in which the individual is connected to the community. In other words, we overemphasize the one side over the other, and this asymmetry can manifest itself in a form of selfishness which is detrimental to the well-being of others. I think this tension is an important one, and erring too far in either direction is a big problem. But, being a Westener, I'm inclined to take the side of individual freedom as long as its not completely blind to social responsibility. Our global, international, technological world system seems too tilted towards the single-minded fixation on profits I referred to earlier. The impact this has on community, the environment, etc. is seen as less important than not infringing upon the freedom of individuals.

Have you been following his campaign and his election? Do you read the news? Do you understand what he's attempting, and why it could have disastrous consequences? Remember the Great Depression? World War II? The world is on a knife-edge at this point in history, the scientists - they're not politicians - who run the Doomsday Clock moved their hands nearer to midnight last week, in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why do you think they would do that? Trump is a threat to world peace, a threat to the political and economic order of the entire planet. You need to wake up to this fact. — Wayfarer

Take it easy, Wayfarer, I'm on your side here! My inquiry was a response to what I felt was a hasty dismissal of 'romanticism,' a term which I should probably eschew in favor of others due to its negative connotations. And that was my point: it's hard to criticize anyone or anything without some idealized notion of how it could or should be. Donald Trump lies when he should tell the truth. He doesn't seem to care about the environment when he should care about it. He doesn't value a free and independent press when he should uphold it as a necessary feature of our liberal democracy. So there's a bit of romanticism going on whenever we criticize, and cynicism too. We're cynical about Trump precisely because we have a vision of what a respectable politician should be like. The two are interrelated, and that's what I was attempting to draw attention to.

I do feel the world as it now exists is inhumane in many ways. And while the US may be less overtly barbaric than Russia or China, it is in desperate need of radical regeneration. Let's say the difference between the two types of inhumanity is roughly equivalent to those found between the dystopias outlined in Brave New World and 1984. Both inhumane, but in vastly different ways. Some people even feel the former is more sinister. But that's an interesting topic left for another time.

And neither of us knows whether these were lone wolves by the way. That's obviously the official story, but one of the consequences of habitual lying is the loss of credibility. Agencies like the FBI don't sit around celebrating things like freedom of speech and the use of this right to foment public discord and eventual change. But I'll concede the point you make in lieu of lacking evidence for the notion that the government may have been involved in eliminating certain contentious figures.

Not sure what the salutary warning refers to, so maybe you can extrapolate a bit.

As I see it, without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs. In a certain sense, even the American founders were 'romantics'--at least in theory--who longed for a world in which the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence became a reality.

Those who fought against slavery out of moral conviction were also guided by the belief in a newer and better and more just world. Without that inspiring vision we stick with the status quo. But, as Heraclitus noted, all flows and life is constantly dying off and renewing itself. Human worlds have been born, lingered for a time, and then passed away giving way to others. The process continues and we as human beings play an active part in this historical unfolding. Of course each world tries to eternalize itself, but that's impossible.

Now its also clear that this impulse needs to be tempered with an awareness of the human tendency towards hypocrisy, violence and oppression in the name of an ideal.

I mean, from a practical perspective (irrespective of moral considerations), what exactly is the problem with Trump? Maybe Romanticism is too discredited a term. Idealism? Progressivism? There, do you find those terms more congenial?

There have been assassinations in this country of political leaders and political or cultural dissidents who represented a legitimate threat to the status quo. Many people--and not confined to crackpot conspiracy theorists--even believe 9/11 was an inside job. Our 'mainstream' media has been complicit in maintaining a hegemonic narrative which largely supports the system, and this in turn has pushed these fringe figures to the margins of society by denying them a voice. This has helped maintain a sense of consensus among the American populace regarding the legitimacy of the system, at least until the likes of Trump and Bernie Sanders called the entire 'establishment' into question.

But let's see what happens now that the situation has changed. I suspect those freedoms of speech and opinion--admittedly more prevalent here than in many other nations--will be subjected to serious scrutiny moving forward in an attempt to reign in the dialogue and discredit opponents of the system. We had the luxury of allowing these things previously, but not so much these days.

And cynicism like this is only depressing if it ends there. For me, it's merely a preparation for something to take its place. A non-consumerist, civically-engaged country in which the economy is subordinated to real human needs and concerns (material, emotional, even 'spiritual') would definitely be one worth fighting for. One which reconciled the tremendous benefits of science and technology with the longing for deep connections with a home and other human beings beyond instrumental calculations. Not sure if this comes about through the democratic process or through the deliberative and authoritative elements of society somehow being taken over by philosopher-kings (I jest of course).

So my cynicism is part and parcel of my romanticism. A discredited notion in itself, it seems, that there's something more to life than slaving away at a meaningless job in order to buy shit you don't need. Trump clearly doesn't represent a departure from the commercialized civilization we're immersed in, but rather an intensification of its guiding principles. Maybe we needed someone like him to see just how utterly rotten and alienating this world is at the moment. We've been subjected to garbage escapist entertainment for so long--which has kept us distracted from other concerns-- and here we have someone who's cleverly taking advantage of the malleable human material that's been created in the process.

So to drive the point home one last time: we're focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. I happen to think this is a shortsighted mistake, and that our attention shouldn't be fixed entirely on the often ridiculous figure of Donald Trump, but also, and more importantly, on that very world he so comfortably and 'successfully' finds himself at home in. Better yet, let's do both at the same time and not become useful idiots for the previous establishment.

I am American and I do think it's a lie. Despite paying lip service to human values we will gladly do business in places like China, Saudi Arabia, etc. We're outraged that Russia tried to influence out presidential election, yet we've often meddled in the internal affairs of other nations in order to push our (who is this 'our' though?) national interest. And let's be absolutely clear: human rights--and values more generally beyond material interests--have had nothing to do with our strategic activity.

The writer of this article seemed to acknowledge this truth at the outset, albeit while lamenting the fact that the old distinction between perception and reality has been exposed. And of course his primary concern for this development is centered around issues of geopolitical expediency and, more specifically, with how the perception that the US is no different than other nations does not serve our (you guessed it!) national interests.

This is obviously the cynical but realistic view of politics. I don't condone this position, nor do I think it's absolutely necessary in some Machiavelian way. But it is what it is. I am however open to hearing counter-examples which would belie this claim. Kosovo perhaps? I just see a deep connection between major economic players and our political figures which makes me highly suspicious of any claims to moral superiority coming from professional liars.

As to the point regarding the moral principles this nation was founded upon, well, I agree with that but would also add that every nation's leader(s) claim to be acting upon moral grounds. Communist regimes claimed to be looking out for the welfare of the working classes against predatory capitalists. Authoritarian regimes claim to act in the interests of average citizens against internal and external enemies who'd reduce them to servitude. Theocracies claim to be acting according to higher principles of religion.

So my point would be that moral principles seem built into the justification for every political system. What we need to do is, first, see if those principles are indeed worthy ones, and second, are they adhered to or rather used in a manipulative way to conceal other less-elevated motivations? Again, I feel it's almost always the latter case. Outstanding human beings inspired by genuine moral concerns exist, just not in the political realm.

But I may be wrong here, and I'd like nothing more than to be proven so. I think there are a lot of really positive things about the US (despite our politicians!), and I want to seek those out and highlight them.

I don't think it's against the US, but the catastrophe of Trump having been elected. The President of the US has the power to literally destroy the world and that power is in the hands of a demonstrably unsuitable person.

I think in all seriousness that it's a consequence of too much television, and the inability to distinguish reality and fantasy. And it's really dangerous. — Wayfarer

But the fact is he's merely responding to the world which both 'establishment' Republicans and Democrats alike helped bring about.

They both betrayed higher notions of civic virtue and responsibility to moneyed interests; they both turned the educational system into one geared exclusively towards the creation of docile consumers; they both supported spending more money on our military than the rest of the world combined; they both supported bombing the shit out of the Middle East and destabilizing the entire region under false pretense; they both gave uncritical support to Israel as it continued to defy UN resolutions against Palestinians; they both assisted in the dismantling of unions and the scaling back of social services to those hurt most by globalization; they both allowed the extremely wealthy to become even wealthier while 'average' Americans saw their quality of life take a beating; they both created divisive narratives based upon race for the sake of (perceived) political expediency; etc.

This is a far from exhaustive list of the complete and utter failure of this country to (1) live up to its stated ideals and (2) form an inclusive and inspiring narrative which would bind us together in ways that transcend racial/ethnic identities and the narrow pursuit of material self-interest.

So as I understand it, he's a desperate response to this pretty bleak scenario for lower and middle-class Americans. And while I definitely don't think he's the answer, let's not kid ourselves about the system that he's at least temporarily replaced. Lesser of two evils, you say? Probably, but perhaps we needed some sort of destabilizing agent to shake the previous leaders of this country from their serial duplicity and complicity in a system which was not at all responsive to the legitimate concerns of normal American citizens, not to mention extremely aggressive in its military and economic aims around the globe.

And I do think he's done a couple of positive things thus far, albeit probably not on a conscious level. First and foremost, he's gotten that much-maligned 'white working class' to see that its interests are not at all aligned with the Republican oligarchs (free market fundamentalists who shamelessly combine a sham religiosity with a sham patriotism while gladly outsourcing American jobs, thus betraying their true God and only genuine loyalty: money) whom they'd uncritically supported over the past 40 or so years.

He also came out yesterday and acknowledged (ostensibly in defense of Putin's brutal tactics) that we in the US have killers working for us and that we're far from innocent in the way we've conducted our affairs around the world. Exposing the noble lie that we're morally superior to others is something you'd much sooner hear from Noam Chomsky than any respectable politician in the US. Now of course that obvious truth will be portrayed as a lie by the very people who are so adamantly opposed to his use of 'alternative facts' in this 'post-truth' world.

He may take the use of lies to a new level of ridiculousness, particularly regarding trivial matters (like how many people attended his inauguration) related to his ego, but maybe those sorts of lies are less insidious than the clever deceptions propagated by more polished political 'elites' which attempt to mask the disconnect between the way Americans have perceived their country--standing on the side of freedom and justice and democracy--and what it's really become, which is an aggressive and imperialistic oligarchy cloaked under the guise of democracy.

Anyhow, the American people have been misled and manipulated for a very long time, and we shouldn't forget that even as we rightly condemn the many absurdities of Trumpism. He fits right into this consumerist world's values of individualism and hedonism. Let's change that world--and, to re-emphasize, this is a world that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum helped create by allowing corporate interests to infiltrate the political system--and make it one where a man like Trump is no longer admired or respected.

I would also add that I'm not against the public educational system inculcating a certain set of religiously-neutral but socially (and individually) beneficial values into students. I'm referring to fairly benign things that I think most people would agree upon: the importance of hard work and personal responsibility, an understanding of how our lives are intimately connected with others in our community, an appreciation for our historical heritage which should should honor that tradition by also being reflective and critical when necessary, holding doors open and saying 'please' and 'thank you' etc.

I agree with those distinctions. I feel like many of these issues--at least ones related to personal moral standards and behavior--should be battled out at the grassroots level of culture and values. I'd much rather people freely choose the good than be forced into it against their will. So, for example, I'm against abortion personally (which concerns only my wife and I) as a symptom of the overall cheapening of life, but I would like for others to arrive at that same view on their own and not through government action.

There are of course certain exceptions to my respect for personal liberty, particularly when involving issues which cannot be isolated from the 'common good.' In the economic sphere especially I'm as unsympathetic to socially irresponsible capitalists as could possibly be. Ethical, communally-responsible capitalism is commendable, or would be if it existed within a society of virtuous citizens inspired by more than a love of money and single-minded devotion to profits above all other considerations.

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

And here I thought I was a social conservative. I do make a fundamental distinction between my own personal views and my unwillingness to forcefully impose these on others through government action. A strange mix of practical conservatism and theoretical libertarianism, I guess. Economically I'm pretty hostile to unbridled capitalism. I didn't really like how many of these questions were framed.

Welcome. Would be awesome to get 180 Proof and Landru Guide Us over here.

I've seen interpretations that talk about "Being" as that which makes meaning possible or, alternatively, as a sort of invisible or receding framework in which or through which beings are disclosed. I roughly associate a sort of anti-metaphysical insight here with an idiosyncratic understanding of ordinary language philosophy. To speak intelligibly, we seem to depend on a "background" of practices that we cannot get perfectly clear about. But this anti-metaphysical insight is arguably obliterated (the medium defeating the message) when expressed in "grandiose" or highly technical ways. — R-13

I think that's a good assessment. I picked up my copy of Being and Time today and flipped through the section concerning the 'handiness' of equipment, a section which serves as a point of departure from traditional philosophical speculation regarding ideas, objects, sense data, etc. Bringing that framework into awareness seems an extremely difficult task, and I don't feel Heidegger was being intentionally obscure in his attempt to do so. I also agree that there are obvious parallels between this task of his and that of ordinary language philosophers, especially the later Wittgenstein: the form of life in which our use of language is embedded is akin to our pre-theoretical understanding of things within the context of purposeful, engaged activity.

his is a strong point. I personally don't feel that alienation and dehumanization are becoming more widespread. I can't identify with such a gloomy view. Sure, the world refuses to conform to individual desires, but this strikes me as nothing new. — R-13

You may be right about this. I'll admit a penchant for waxing nostalgic about the past, and also for romanticizing possibilities in which human existence shifts from being based primarily upon economic interests to one characterized by a more poetic, reflective and appreciative disposition. But no, I definitely don't feel at home in this fast-paced technological world. I'm particularly disturbed by the narrow understanding of personal 'success' and the pervasive fixation on related things like speed, productivity, and efficiency which characterize our advanced technological civilization. I'd much rather sit at home and read Plato, for instance, than throw myself into the sort of career-oriented and consumerist lifestyle which occupies most people's time and energy these days.

Anyhow, I do think Heidegger is an astute observer of certain ontological trends which have shaped the way we understand of ourselves and our world throughout history, and the subsequent impact these interpretations have had upon the lives of human beings. There may be something uniquely threatening about our modern condition, in which all beings, including humans, are reduced to the one-dimensional level of exploitable resource. This experiment seems to be getting beyond our control, and nothing less than a radical shift in our understanding of Being can save us from this danger. I honestly don't think this insight of Heidegger's is as far-fetched or absurd as it sounds. I mean, Donald Trump is going to be President of the United States. And what he was up against--a globalized consumer paradise run by 'elites' and technocrats--is perhaps an even more monstrous phenomena. But I digress...

Finally, I'd be curious to see how you might elaborate on your own interpretation of Heidegger, especially on the being issue and its relevance. — R-13

I would tentatively say that I see Heidegger as someone who tries to infuse our existence with a (re)new(ed) sense of wonder, the sort which seems to have shaped the greatness of the ancient Greek world (at least in art, philosophy, and a few other areas) but that's largely non-existent these days. I think this is a worthy goal. I also appreciate his attempt to displace human existence from our current sense of imperious subjectivity, while simultaneously giving us an even more profound sense of dignity through our relatedness to something much 'greater' than ourselves, to Being. His is a nuanced position, I think: it's more concerned with asking difficult questions than with giving easy answers; it sees the material world as radiating a profound sense of 'spiritual' significance; it's very this-worldly without being reductionist; it finds the extraordinary in the ordinary; it's revolutionary while also being respectful of the tradition. In other words, this is a unique perspective which isn't easy to categorize according to standard oppositions like religious/atheistic, progressive/reactionary, etc. All of this resonates with me a great deal and has influenced my thinking on a variety of topics.

That being said, there's quite a bit that I've grown to dislike about Heidegger, and I can try to outline a few of these things if you'd like. It's a cautious appropriation of his work, at least as I understand it and as it relates to the concrete circumstances of my life as being immersed within a much different community than his.

I can't tell whether you find Heidegger convincing or not. Are you pointing out his absurdity or defending him? I would personally give him grief over the implicit distinction between "thinking" and "reason." I'm somewhat aware of what he was getting at, but I still think this "sexy" line just begs for trouble. "Hey, guys. I just invented a stronger type of thinking than reason. Seriously."
We can certainly talk about the limitations of a style or a concept of reasoning, but that doesn't sound as exciting and revolutionary. I do really think the line quoted is "sexy." But I also associate critical thinking with an ability to resist seduction... — R-13

I think the quote you brought up is a good example of the type of hyperbole Heidegger was unfortunately prone to use for dramatic effect. There are many other examples in his corpus, but this is one of the most widely quoted ones that makes it seem as if he has no regard for a philosophical tradition based upon rigorous thought. And because of this he should not be taken seriously as a thinker. These types of provocations do lend themselves to that interpretation, and they're pretty much impossible to make sense of without understanding the wider context of his work in which a statement like this becomes less mystifying.

Now as I understand Heidegger (an important qualification), he wasn't against 'reason' per se, but only the elevation of a specific type of theoretical/representational thinking, which has largely come to dominate modern thought and life, over other forms of thought. It's become the only game in town so to speak. He felt there was a more 'primordial' and pre-theoretical openness to the world that 'reason' - in the restrictive sense just referred to - is parasitic of. The first type of thinking deals with specific beings, while the second focuses on Being--or, more properly, the Being of beings. And since the Being of beings is not an extant being, a form of thinking predicated upon representation and calculation cannot, ipso facto, address the very 'thing' which makes us who we are. And who we are is the question Heidegger seems fixated upon: We are beings who have an understanding of Being.

That's not to suggest that reason doesn't have a valid and extremely important role to play, especially in the theoretical sciences, or even in practical human activity, but there are other modes of thinking that are perhaps more appropriate for understanding human existence, and specifically the relation of this existence to Being, which is the sine qua non of Heidegger's thinking from beginning to end.

At the very least, tacit assumptions about what it means to be human, and its corollary, our understanding of Being, are brought back from their perceived obviousness and thrown into a renewed questionability. I think that's an important development. But if you feel these questions have been answered conclusively, then, at best, Heidegger will seem a complete waste of time. At worst, his apparent obfuscations, combined with his politics, make him an evil and self-serving charlatan. Again, I don't think this is the case (he's definitely not an exceptional man in an ethical sense, like I feel, for instance, Wittgenstein was), but I can understand why people would think this.

That's my take on the matter. Oh, and I do think there's a clear anti-intellectual, anti-democratic and anti-modern element to his thought, in both the early and the later stuff. The fact that he was a Nazi is not all that surprising, but it should also be noted that his 'brand' of Nazism was highly idiosyncratic and not based upon the biological racism and anti-Semitism that ultimately came to define it. But to be perfectly honest, as I get older--and hopefully a little less concerned with how others perceive me--I've become more inclined to think that these sacred cows should not be beyond criticism.

We live in the spiritual wasteland that Nietzsche predicted, and this is the predicament that Heidegger was responding to. If you don't feel that alienation and dehumanization are becoming more widespread, then once again Heidegger will not resonate with you.

I don't think Heidegger is overrated at all. The radical new understanding of human existence he articulates in B&T makes it one of the most insightful and revolutionary philosophical works I've ever read. And the results of this work of fundamental ontology have relevance for a wide variety of important topics, such as art, technology, and theology to name a few.

So in what will surely draw the ire of his horde of detractors, I would put it him up there with the all-time 'greats' - far superior IMO to Nietzsche (whom I also appreciate) in many ways - and this despite his horrendous political decision. I do occasionally wish he would have omitted some of the extraneous and unnecessary aspects of his writing style, but at other times I appreciate the entire 'production' he puts forward in dramatic fashion. His writing can be mesmerizing once you have a decent grasp of his terminology, especially the 'later' stuff. At least I find it so.

Just my opinion. I'll be glad to discuss further with anyone who's actually made a legitimate attempt to read and understand him. I totally get the reason(s) why people don't generally like him upon initial reading, largely due to his near impenetrable use of language. It's also hard to look beyond his Nazi past, which is understandable.

You think so? In developed economies, are high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, and large numbers of children born outside marriage, not to mention epidemics of cybersexual addiction. This simply a kind of hedonic fantasy that equates pleasure and happiness. — Wayfarer

I think there are many factors involved here. First, though, I want to make it clear for anyone who hasn't read my previous posts in this thread that I don't personally adhere to this hedonistic view. I'm simply trying to grasp what the highest 'good' would be in a life which rejects belief in anything superior to our own physical and psychological well-being. I can definitely see Agustino's point regarding the compatibility of atheism and social conservatism, and I even admitted that atheism would not preclude a pragmatic conservatism in which social stability and personal happiness are valued as goods despite not being grounded in typical religious beliefs like an eternal soul, an afterlife in which rewards and punishments are doled out based upon our actions, or even a vague belief in something transcending the material aspect of existence.

That being said, I also think there are many people who do indeed view sexual gratification--or physical pleasures more generally--as the highest good (the only good) within an atheistic universe which isn't grounded in any sense of spiritual significance. I think there are quite a few out there who clearly envy the ability of a wealthy businessman, a famous rock star or a professional athlete to have sex with multitudes of attractive women whenever they like. If you use condoms or other forms of birth control then you can largely eliminate many of the unintended/undesirable consequences of living such a lifestyle that you pointed out. That way of life can obviously bring temporary pleasure and happiness. But it cannot lead to the type of deep and abiding contentment which accompanies knowing that while we could do whatever we choose (given our specific context) if we wanted to, we freely choose not out of the sake of higher principles (e.g. trust, loyalty, compassion, sacrifice, love).

There was admittedly a time in my life when getting laid was the primary motivation of my actions. I was fortunate enough to meet my future wife after this trial (mawkish, I know), and my values shifted significantly. This shift coincided with an openness towards 'spirituality' which had previously been lacking. My wife was much more than a clump of matter that satisfied my desire for physical pleasure. She was more than someone I wanted to have sex with. I actually cared about her in a way that I hadn't previously experienced. I went from being a selfish prick to being at least a less selfish prick. And then we had a child, and after that my perspective shifted even more radically. I worked jobs I hated to make them happy (or so I felt) and this sacrifice brought me more 'pleasure' than sex with random women ever did. This sounds like romantic twaddle, of course, but alas that's my disposition.

So circling back for a minute, I guess I could simplify my take on this as a contrast between practical and spiritual conservatism. I think the former is grounded in something much more precarious than the latter: I restrain my natural impulses out of fear of the possible consequences of my actions (shame, dissolution of my marriage through my wife's anger, STD's, unwanted children, bad for business and the like)--but I do so out of fear rather than out of the sublime sort of love that flows from a heart genuinely gripped by a firm faith in the inherent value of existence beyond it's brute materiality. Poorly articulated, perhaps, but that's the gist of it.

I think any real philosophy ought to recognize the perilous nature of existence itself. I was reading a summary yesterday of a PhD research programme concerning Western practitioners of Buddhist meditation - the working title being 'A Precarious Path'. It detailed how many difficulties and obstacles practitioners face. And that is as it has to be! Life is perilous and precarious, and a real philosophy has to acknowledge that. Whereas, increasingly, the 'philosophy' of the consumerist society is bent on making the world a safe place for the ignorant; the whole social order is based on encouraging 'consumers' by stimulating their demands for often useless products, or engaging in ridiculous escapist fantasies through screen entertainment and the internet. — Wayfarer

I definitely agree with this, but I also feel that philosophers are atypical in their (theoretical) desire to cut through the type of social and cultural conditioning which most of us uncritically adopt and use to form a stable sense of personal and collective identity. These illusions give us a sense of comfort and security (incidentally this is not specific to theists, IMO, as atheists too have their useful illusions) and relief from noticing the groundlessness of our existence.

I definitely have my comforting illusions (despite a half-hearted attempt to make my beliefs transparent)--for one, my 'faith' that we're something more than 'mere' matter--and I feel life would be overwhelming without them. Existence is enigmatic. Our consumer society is successful in the sense that, while debased, it does generally keep us distracted from the mystery of our existence. To acknowledge that mystery of ourselves, of our world, and of Being in totality, is to set out on a perilous path indeed. Only a small fraction seem cut out for it. I've supplemented my own life experiences by studying philosophy for 20 years now, and to be perfectly honest I feel like I'm just now beginning on the path towards something akin to 'wisdom'. I see arrogance and smugness and complacency and ego and ignorance all around, first and foremost in myself.

But, as usual, I'm making baseless claims and talking nonsense. In all sincerity I agree with Socrates that coming to grips with my own ignorance and tendency towards self-deception seems the highest form of honesty and wisdom possible. There's something elevated about this stance and, dare I say, something profoundly 'spiritual' about it too. It is not necessarily atheistic, as I see it, but neither is it 'religious' in the traditional sense of the word. I also think it's congenial to a form of social conservatism which finds the divine in even the mundane features of everyday life. Marriage, raising children, genuine friendships and other such supra-mundane things are perceived as even more sacred. I'm inclined to think that genuine wisdom and spirituality would go so far as to embrace even the darker elements of Being as somehow holy and divine. As Heraclitus noted, to God all things are good and just, but men think some things good, others evil..

Apologies for getting off track. I appreciate the input others have given here, including of course my friendly nemesis Agustino.

All of what you wrote resonates a great deal with me. I'm assuming of course that I understood it, but I would say that this seems very close to my own feelings on the matter. I struggle to articulate my views, but my sense of spirituality or religiosity is very this-worldly and is probably even more akin to materialism than it is to usual conceptions of religion found in the Western tradition, with their completely transcendent God and otherworldly Heaven.