That was actually a fairly convincing defense of Trump's crude sexual remarks, specifically regarding the fringe benefits celebrities (and people with power more generally) often receive in the form of sexual favors from their fans. Sad IMO but true. I also think you're right about the many tacit non-verbal 'cues' people give off that let another know they're interested, and how far they'd be willing to go. You can 'feel' when someone is interested by many subtle (and not-so-subtle) gestures which emit that interest and openness. And let's be honest, there are many women who chase after money and fame and have no problem at all objectifying themselves for men in order to gain these things. Again sad but true. That's our culture and those are the values which drive much behavior. I'm not suggesting they deserve to be disrespected, but it's a nuanced position that's hard to articulate without falling into disfavor with acceptable opinion on the issue.

The lady who rejected Trump's advances is the redeeming aspect of his 'banter'--although I do wonder what a married woman was doing going furniture shopping with another man, especially one with Trump's reputation as a womanizer. Her husband should have set some boundaries with that type of stuff, as it could be taken once again as tacit consent - at the very least - of an interest in the man (ostensibly) spending time and money on her. I'm guessing he wasn't aware it happened, which would be a betrayal of the trust which binds the partners in a marriage. I'm sounding like a prude here but that's totally unacceptable behavior in a committed and monogamous relationship as I see it.

Anyhow I still think married woman (or man) = show some respect and move along. There are lots of unmarried people to engage in these types of 'conquests' with, and unlike Agustino I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it's done between two consenting adults. It's not ideal (in this I do agree with Agustino) but it's also not THAT bad. Ideally you find someone you connect with on much more than a physical level, but having pre-marital sexual relationships does not preclude that 'deeper' relationship from happening in a person's life somewhere down the line once they meet the right one for them. I like to think I speak from experience on the matter.

I agree with you on most of that, other than the idea that it's perceived as cool to cheat on your spouse. Again the key qualification here is it's not cool amongst 'average' lower or middle class folk. And I would also distinguish between the words and behavior of a teenage boy and an older man, the latter of whom should have moved beyond the objectification of women and caving in to peer pressure by the time he's in his sixties (or fifties, or forties, or even thirties).

Not sure about you, but I think about what I did in my late teens and early twenties and cringe. Who the hell was that stupid kid? It was me, sadly. So 'boys will be boys' seems to hold to a certain extent, independent of the social context. And women can indeed be just as vulgar as men! I believe someone made that point earlier, and I think it's true. But I could be wrong about these things and would like to hear your arguments to the contrary.

I still think the 'average' person is a bit embarrassed that their their marriage failed, or that they were caught cheating, etc. These things happen, obviously, but extra-marital affairs are not seen as praiseworthy no matter how normalized and acceptable those who try to shape culture would like them to be. We're moving in that direction for sure, but there's still some lingering respect for the institution of marriage amongst the masses.

As the product of a failed marriage and a broken home, I think maintaining some respect for marriage is a good thing, however antiquated that sounds to progressives. I think my parent's divorce and subsequent remarriage(s) had a devastating impact upon me and my siblings, so we tend to share your conservatism on this issue up to a certain point. I don't care if it's between two men, two women, or between a woman and a man -- a lifelong commitment, regardless of circumstances, is a sublime and praiseworthy thing, and precisely because it's so 'unnatural' and difficult. But I don't want to sidetrack this topic so I'll leave it at that.

I personally didn't like Trump's boasting about going after a married woman. And wasn't he married at the time? I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned on this matter. The other stuff was pathetic IMO for a 60-something-year-old man, but yeah that kind of bravado is common amongst men, especially teenagers and young adults. Just as seeing an older man get drunk is sad, so is hearing him brag about his sex life like he's in high school.

And I don't buy the 'everyone does it so what's the big deal' argument. I work with very blue collar dudes - some whom ran with gangs in their younger years - and of course the topic of sexual conquests comes up. We're not talking about the latest books we've read. But even amongst the 'rabble' there's generally a certain level of respect when family is concerned, even a stranger's. Now some of these guys probably would try to fuck a married woman, but they wouldn't brag about it, and they definitely wouldn't receive praise if they did. They'd be seen as punks.

Maybe this type of sexual deviance is less prone to censure amongst upper crust society. I don't run in those circles and so may be naive about what takes place in their marriages, which, to stereotype, are probably grounded in wealth and other fickle things. My point is that cheating on your wife - or even sleeping with another man's wife - is in no context that I've been around a commendable thing. At least it's not for lower or middle class Americans. The much-maligned, unsophisticated masses still have a sense of chivalry when it comes to the treatment of married women and children. That's my experience at least. Cheating husbands (and wives) are not respected at all and are subject to some ostracism.

And the relevance of this is that his appeal is largely confined to those very blue collar voters whose values he claims to represent. There may be some admiration for his ability to get beautiful women, but I think he crossed a line or two here. Dude's a complete fraud.

What do you understand by thinking, by being aware, by existing, by being self-conscious?

Sound common sense - the nemesis of serious philosophy - would seem to suggest that you can indeed lack awareness (e.g. dreamless sleep, anesthesia), at least temporarily, and still exist.

Further, why can't we say that we're aware even if the process of how this comes about remains mysterious? I may have misunderstood your point, but that seems similar to suggesting that a person who's completely ignorant about how their bodily mechanisms function can't possibly breathe, digest food, etc.

Finally, what or who is this 'I am', this self whose existence is in jeopardy here? Does it exist in the same way as a table or a tree? Is it a tangible thing whose existence can be pointed to as an object amongst others? If that's the case, then I'd say the self does not exist. Is it more like an activity than a thing?

I'm admittedly not extremely well-versed in these modern skeptical matters, but I am curious about the underlying assumptions which give rise to them in the first place. If they're seen as self-evident concepts given to experience, unworthy of serious consideration, then none of them IMO are as self-evident as the fact that you do exist, that you are in the sense that you stand in a relationship to what is, to being.

Thanks in advance.

Sounds like a life well-lived, Wayfarer. Most definitely nothing to regret IMO -- you answered your calling and preserved a sense of freedom from the overwhelming public pressure to align your life with the dictates of the market, with it's narrow understanding of success and failure being tied to the accumulation of money and possessions. A collective form of madness indeed.

Anyhow I too am stepping away from a job soon without a definite plan of action in place. It will involve scaling back expenses (which are already pretty Spartan-like) and spending more time pursuing things that matter to me, although I'm not quite sure how this will translate into a livable situation. I'd like to delve into writing and independent scholarship with all my energy for once - not merely as a hobby as has been the case until now - and see where that leads. I do feel I could move back into a management or consulting position fairly quickly if necessary.

Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Great stuff guys. I'll try to respond in more detail later, but it's given me a lot to think about and there are a few contributions here that I can maybe even appropriate pragmatically into my life. I was hesitant to post this topic, in large part because of its highly personal nature, but I'm happy I did so now.

Quickly though, one of my issues is that while I think these things through quite a bit, I've never been able to arrive at set, unshakable positions on the 'big' questions. I'm referring of course to things like the meaning of life and the nature of existence. I have plenty of opinions on 'worldly' topics like politics and economics, but I see extremely intelligent and sincere people (not only here but amongst the 'wise' throughout history) disagreeing on pretty much everything. This being so I cannot convince myself that anyone has found the Truth. If that's the case for the 'smaller' practical issues then it's surely the case for the larger and more speculative ones.

As for me, well, Socrates' knowledge of his own ignorance and Zen Buddhist (as I understand it) dismissals of metaphysical speculation have always resonated with my acute awareness of intellectual and personal limitations. Trust me, I really want to believe that I have the answers to the riddle(s) of life and death, or even to dismiss the idea that there are any riddles to solve - but I don't have anything more than some fuzzy and ambiguous intuitions about the 'spiritual' significance of life. And even that's a relatively recent development largely borne out of these tragedies. Maybe that's enough, but it's remarkable to me how resilient people of faith (not only religious faith) can be in their responses to tragedy. I'm a bit envious of their ability to place things within a larger and ultimately edifying holistic framework.

That young friend who died -- his parents (Christian missionaries) have a firm belief that their son is with God in Heaven and that they will see him again in some glorified state. And make no mistake, these are not 'stupid' people. The father in particular is an engineer by training who moved the family to Bolivia for about ten years and taught rural villagers how to generate power (along with working on their souls) through the use of various cheap materials. He has a YouTube channel of tutorials, and some of them have over a million hits. Not that that's the gold standard for intelligence but...

For those of us who lack faith in any coherent and all-encompassing worldview, we don't have the palliative effect of strong religious or even scientific belief to fall back on. Ultimately 'I don't know' seems the most honest answer to life's major questions - of which unanticipated death brings to the forefront - even if not the most efficacious or emotionally satisfying. To rest content in this perplexed state, which incidentally is about as far from indifference as possible, is something that takes more courage than I currently have, I think.

In a strange way just talking honestly about these things, and seeing how each of you comes to grips with your mortality (and the mortality of those you care about), has taken away some of the sting and loneliness. There's enough anonymity (and intelligence) here that I don't feel the need to project strength (like I do with my wife and boys) and pretend that I'm not hurting deeply.

Thanks again.

And by the way, I don't mean to imply that the death of a friend and the harsh diagnosis of a loved one were events that were somehow concocted for my sake in order for me to find meaning (or God) - which would be incredibly egotistical - but rather that they shook me from complacency and led me to this spiritual crisis. The question now is whether to persist in the turbulence (Heidegger) or strive to attain some sort of stoic detachment from it (Spinoza). I'm not quite sure these two possible responses to our predicament can be reconciled. In fact the more I think about it the more they seem radically opposed. But you probably have a much better grasp of these thinkers than I do.

Thank you for your thoughtful response(s). Do you feel there's any significant difference between our death and our own nothingness? This may sound completely unsophisticated and outdated, but I'm inclined to think of my body as a sort of vehicle which is intimately linked to something higher or more spiritual which animates it. My body could linger on while 'I' am no longer there. I think of Nietzsche in his last years or others who've gone insane or succumbed to Alzheimer's or some other sort of significant brain damage. They are essentially dead.

So maybe it's not physical death that induces anxiety but the possible annihilation or nothingness of the embodied 'self' or 'soul' that we are. And this subsequently leads to thinking about the nature of the finite self, which can in turn exacerbate the anxiety since it doesn't seem to be a 'thing' we can easily grasp or understand. It appears instead as something much more mysterious and profound than is generally acknowledged.

I do think Heidegger places a lot of emphasis on the role of anxiety (about our nothingness) in disclosing our relation to being. It need not lead to despair or a morbid fixation on death, but could also result in a thankful and appreciative stance towards the life and world we've been thrown into in all its frailty and unpredictability. This is the 'positive' or affirming flipside to the awareness of death/nothingness which pervades our being. Akin to the paradoxes of Heraclitus' perhaps - sickness makes health sweet; without injustices the name of justice means what? While social conventions and myths may be tranquilizing, to exist 'authentically' and to be truly free from illusions would seem to amount to facing the uncanniness and mystery of existence (Being) squarely and, as you said, abide in the resulting anxiety. Maybe it's a precursor to a form of creativity that glorifies and celebrates the event of Being in its myriad (and mutually-dependent) aspects.

Anyhow it should be pretty obvious at this point that I share your view of the spiritual significance of our lives. I have a vague faith in that at least. Part of me feels I'm on the verge of some sort of religious conversion/radical leap of faith which recent experiences have prepared me for. Oddly enough I've felt tremendous joy recently - definitely not all doom and gloom all the time - the likes of which I had not felt before in my life. Not sure what's going on. Wishful thinking? Slipping into 'madness'? Some sort of survival mechanism? The divine crashing in on my life? The call of Being?

"I'm really not sure that that's what Heidegger is advocating. Constant anxiety does not strike me as in the least bit compatible with an 'authentic' life. Like the whispering of 'memento mori' contemplation of one's ultimate destination is surely intended to keep you on the path to authenticity not turn you into a quivering wreck by the side!"

Good point. I do think he felt anxiety was/is an important aspect of a 'genuine' life, but to be consumed by it in the way I described definitely does not amount to authenticity. Thankfully these feelings are fleeting, with the occasional flare ups causing a temporary paralysis of sorts, but generally lurking just below the surface and largely kept in check. Now that I have a little distance from the sensations I can try to assess their significance, if any, and that's where I'm at right now. But again this is stressful position to be in since life is by its nature precarious. I've looked into the Stoics and Buddhists and other 'schools' that seem to start from a similar position. I'm intrigued by Spinoza's ideas and feel that much of the anxiety may dissipate if I only had the right perspective. But would that even be a 'good' thing? I'm not so sure.

Thanks for the informative response and practical advice on how to manage stress, Agustino. I've taken the necessary steps to educate myself about the similarities and differences between symptoms caused by anxiety and those which can be traced to a condition of, say, the heart or lungs.

I would obviously like to live a long and healthy life, but I think my main concern for bringing up these very personal events/symptoms is with the possible responses they can elicit once those immediate symptoms subside and we reflect upon the fragility of life. The results could range anywhere from a weary resignation to a joyful affirmation of our existence. I find myself vacillating between the two in fact. So while getting a handle on those obsessions is indeed important, in a strange way I find myself being thankful for them - at least to a certain extent.

Now some people may find this view masochistic and suggest I get some medication to alleviate my worries and symptoms, but I believe that being open to anxiety may have an uncanny way of cutting through much of the bullshit in our lives. This in turn may leave us with a sense of awe and wonder and even thankfulness for our existence, or being generally, and so seems the ground of genuine philosophy and the possibility of a life well-lived. It's the 'attunement' which inspires and corresponds to the examined life. It plays out in practical ways too as we no longer merely put on the mask and go through the motions. So if we can appropriate our being-towards-death properly - not being overwhelmed by it but also not ignoring or dismissing it - it harbors an almost 'spiritual' function. I don't want to speculate or embarrass myself too much on a topic whose literature I'm largely ignorant of, but I intuit the genuine self which calls out during anxiety as being closely aligned with some mysterious divine presence. I won't go further with this here but, as mentioned previously, I have a deep respect for mystics and other spiritual seekers in their endeavors to tap into this source.

I guess I'm with Wittgenstein (and even Nietzsche, I think) in that while I may not be a religious man, I always find myself interpreting things from a religious point of view. I may not have been granted any grace from God, but, at the very least, I've been gifted with an intense and turbulent awareness of the strangeness of existence, and do not take things for granted. On all this I agree with Heidegger. But again, there are times when it seems all-consuming and physically and emotionally draining, not in the service of life but at its expense, and in that I see Spinoza's point. So yeah, it seems like I'm in the process of trying to appropriate these events into my life in a 'positive' way without succumbing to a morbid fixation on death itself. On this your practical advice on how to get some control over irrational fears was extremely helpful, and there was some information and advice there that I may try to implement. Thank you!

Good question. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is other than the fact that reverence for the 'founding fathers' - within the wider narrative of their risking everything in order to free us from the perceived despotism of Great Britain - has been inculcated through a variety of myths from an early age. It becomes a thoughtless and automatic association, and we assume that any deviation from their sacred thoughts is tantamount to a betrayal of freedom and the principles upon which this country was supposed to have been founded.

The interesting thing that I found out later was how little they agreed upon. That being the case, appealing to the founders' 'intentions', which is typically done in an attempt to buttress popular support for a specific policy, is an emotional ploy used to discredit opponents. By disagreeing with the founders, you are ipso facto un-American. But that's absurd since the men who wrote the constitution could not agree on essentials after the fact.

If I recall correctly, their disagreements got so intense that the election of 1800 (between two primary founders, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) was known as the Second American Revolution, pitting the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists. The competing parties had widely divergent visions of such matters as who should be included in the democratic process, the scope of government generally, banking policy, standing army, etc.

Not sure why anyone would feel insulted. That feeling, to me, would speak more about their own egos than about the aspiring ascetic's. While I may lack the self-control to practice that lifestyle, I don't pride myself on my own shortcomings and can appreciate those who try to do maintain some discipline over their desires.

Of course there may be some whose motivations for following this path are egotistical (I think Nietzsche diagnosed this as the basic characteristic of the ascetic 'type'), who want to lord it over others in order to feel superior, but if done sincerely and out of a desire to overcome their weakness for worldly things, I would acknowledge my admiration and wish them well.

Depends - conservatism generally and historically refers to social policy. Someone can be a conservative with a socialist view of economics, nothing contradictory in that. In fact, my economics are probably slightly left-leaning as well (free education, free healthcare, government restriction of multinational corporations, etc.) Marx had something that he called reactionary socialism (because such a socialism was practiced before) - which is very alike to social conservatism coupled with socialist leaning economics. — Agustino

I'm actually surprised there aren't more people who embrace this combination of social conservatism and leftist(ish) economics. That's become my position in recent years, and it's a lonely place. Well, at least its lonely here in the US, where social conservatism is almost always wedded to neoliberal economics. This being the case, I find myself having much more in common with people on the Left than on the Right, since the former do appear to take ethical considerations seriously. What has begun to separate me from them, in part and amongst other things, is that they stop short of endorsing the idea that any one way of living is, or even could be, superior to another. That theoretical relativism of the Left is belied by passionate protestations against greed, corruption, racial oppression and other things they (IMO rightly) consider social ills.

But getting back to the point, I do think a focus on virtue - and character formation generally - can only benefit the development of genuine 'freedom' as well as a 'progressive' economic agenda. A virtuous person for instance would seem much more likely to treat their family, their workers, and their fellow citizens in ways that would result in more camaraderie, trust and good will than we see at present. Without that ethical grounding, cynicism and hedonism and shortsighted self-interest combine to create a hostile and exploitative social and economic environment.

I'll shamelessly offer myself as an example of how embodying some (admittedly poor) semblance of 'virtue' could be compatible with a progressive social policy - keeping in mind my many personal flaws of course and admitting I was going to go with the old 'I have a friend who...' routine. Long story (somewhat) short, I offered to take a pay cut at work to make sure a couple of my hardworking employees got modest pay increases I felt they deserved. This idea was met by the owners with total disbelief, like how could anyone be so stupid as to volunteer to make less money? The answer for me was pretty simple: taking care of our employees and treating them like human beings rather than numbers would reinforce their loyalty and commitment, which would make my job a lot easier, and would also increase the likelihood of the company's success.

What I didn't say, so as not to give offence, is that I'm not fixated on money or gaining the approval of others through the typical symbols of social success. I would gladly spread the wealth around if it meant others are taken care of too. Being stubborn and shortsighted bean-counters, and seeing our workers as obstacles rather than contributors to increased profits, they couldn't fathom mindset. It was like I was speaking a language they had never heard. I then tried to use their language and reinforce the pragmatic cost/benefit angle (setting aside the moral/ethical aspect) as increased pay (along with other things) would likely improve morale, decrease absenteeism, help us avoid turnover, and improve the overall performance of our staff. With that they started to listen and actually gave the employees raises.

I only bring this story up because I feel it represents, in a very small way, some form of social conservatism aligning with almost communistic economic tendencies. I may have a somewhat antiquated or idiosyncratic view of social conservatism as a cluster of related positions (community-oriented, there's more to life than making money, people should be treated as ends rather than means, virtue is its own reward, awareness of the historical tradition and its exemplary figures, etc...) but it seems reasonable to assume that a virtuous populace would be likely to embrace a progressive social/economic agenda. At the very least, this voice should be represented amongst all the political parties and noise we hear today.



.

I understand what you're saying, and largely agree with it, but my point in bringing up BLM was not to dispute the disproportionate level of violence and oppression that people of color receive at the hands of police, but rather to point out that at a time when many white folk like myself were inclined to stand with this group against injustice, we were purposely pushed away and told that we were part of the problem.

I'm thinking particularly of what I felt to be a grotesque article accusing all white people of ipso facto being racists and beneficiaries of 'white privilege'. The article was written by a wealthy, black, and well-connected college professor (Michael Eric Dyson), no less. Now, it may be my imagination running wild, but it seems like he was using his platform in the NY Times to make a concerted effort to drive a wedge between whites and blacks, when issues of economic background and social status could have served as a rallying cry to bring people of different races together under the banner of fighting against a corrupt establishment, of which the police (also blue-collar workers) are paid to protect and serve. And his was not an isolated case but one of many that harped on similarly divisive themes through major media outlets.

When working class white stiffs finally started complaining about the economic elites who dominate the country (instead of 'black welfare queens' or other traditional scapegoats), most of whom are white, an attempt was made to minimize the vast differences in power and influence amongst whites by welding us into a monolithic block. My take, or perhaps my hope, is that poor people of all races come to see that they have more in common with each other than with elites like Michael Eric Dyson. But I'm rambling unnecessarily now...

Now of course these aren't entirely related matters (police oppression against blacks and growing economic inequality), but the economic aspect - specifically the plight of working class people regardless of race - has been almost entirely ignored in favor of a racial narrative by those news outlets which hold the most sway. It just seemed a bit fishy to me, almost like it was purposely contrived given the timing of other things going on concurrently that were bringing awareness to global and national socio-economic issues. But again, I'll chalk all this up to my paranoia rather than some elaborate scheme of the rich to divide poor people against each other. Perhaps racial identity is more important to most people than class identity, and I should just accept that this will always be the case.

I agree with TGW that what you outlined seems a very plausible (at least partial) explanation of what's motivating this horde of angry white working class males. Makes a lot of sense actually.

I also think Francis Fukuyama's notion of the desire for 'recognition' has a certain explanatory power when assessing the driving force behind the growing hostility of this demographic. The dignity that this group once enjoyed has been eroding for quite some time, and we're seeing some blowback now. I think there are many people who will forego material comfort and well-being - to the point of sacrificing their lives if necessary - for the sake of more ethereal values like honor and respect.

Incidentally this phenomena would also appear to shed light on BLM and other marginalized groups' struggle for recognition, as well as hostility to the domination of the West in places like the Middle East. In China too they remember the Hundred Years of Humiliation and use that memory to inspire the current generation to do what they must to prevent it from happening again. Historic and more contemporary examples abound.

So I see the biological, economic and more incorporeal psychological aspects as overlapping and reinforcing, rather than an either/or matter in which only one explanation is right. People will fight to the death over material and non-material things alike, and I think an awareness of these different aspects of human existence may help us understand and address the pressing issues of racial and class and national antagonisms.

Not sure I agree with Slater, at least not without serious qualification, but these are definitely thought-provoking points, especially the second.

I know very few people who would talk openly about the need to preserve 'white' culture, but many do speak of an attack upon American culture, or Western culture. The growing equation of American culture with white culture, with special emphasis on its inherently racist and oppressive tendencies, may have the (perhaps) unintended consequence of pushing white people to identify as a group that's come under attack and, by default, caused them to rally together collectively. I'm sure there are white men and women (especially men) who find some strange psychological solace or even enjoyment in playing the role of victim in this new scenario, but I also think a distinction should be made between 'dreamt-up' and reasonable grievances.

I think we can all agree that the last 40 years has hit the middle and lower classes of all races hard, very hard in fact, and, in the US at least, the Democrats - who would appear to be the historical and ideological representatives of this demographic - have purposely fostered an emphasis on identity rather than class-based politics. I also think an argument could be made that 'progressive' intellectuals who push things like multiculturalism and identity politics could be the cause of increased white racism, precisely because they purposely go out of their way to highlight differences amongst people based upon race and ethnicity and sexual orientation - black culture, Latino culture, LGBT culture - and then refuse to allow straight, white men to have any identity beyond perpetual racist or bigoted oppressor.

So this group has been backed into a corner and forced to assume an identity, irrespective of vast social and economic differences, with no legitimate effort being made to find another, more transcendent and inclusive one. You are white, therefore you are the new 'other' who must be demonized and marginalized. You will be able to maintain your livelihood and profession as long as you don't voice any 'pride' in your background, or voice your displeasure that other groups are allowed and even encouraged to do so. There are reasons for this discrepancy, but they've been articulated by people much smarter and more educated than yourselves, largely within the comfortable confines and abstractions of academia. The motivation may have been pure (correcting past and current injustices), but the best way to overcome an unjust hierarchy IMO is not an inversion of the old one in favor of a new, but rather searching for commonalities beyond accidental differences of birth.

I'm partial to certain Romantic critiques of the Enlightenment, but I do appreciate the latter's universalist tendencies and lament its apparent demise in this day and age. Very sad. I 've always felt this to be one of the great things about America: I have zero sense of historical identity to European ancestors, I have married a woman of indigenous Mexican heritage, we have children that are (obviously) mixed race, and all of this is seen as pretty normal in the part of the US where I live and grew up in -- oddly one of those maligned white suburbs teaming with Trump supporters. These are non-issues to me and to most of the people I know, but others want to push a divisive race narrative that makes them more relevant than they should be. That's my limited experience at least.

Whatever the case may be, ending the blame game and searching for viable solutions that DO involve a new sense of shared identity and ethos needs to begin ASAP. This obviously gets into complex matters that try to balance the preservation of multiple cultures and identities while also facilitating the aforementioned transcendent sense of belongingness which encompasses each of these separate groups. Or we all blend into a homogeneous and dominant culture, regardless of race or ethnicity. Can't have it both ways, though, at least not as far as I can tell.

Good point.

I just find it strange that BLM makes a concerted effort to dissociate itself from ALL white people, regardless of class, educational background, or any other relevant issue that could possibly make the 'movement' more sympathetic, at least to poor and marginalized white people. The spokespeople that I've read or listened to do this very aggressively too, bludgeoning white people (again, ALL white people) for being the beneficiaries of some ubiquitous 'privilege' floating around them that they apparently can neither fathom nor appreciate. And for poor white folk struggling to afford the basic necessities of life, this seems bizarre -- and then, to make matters worse, even suggesting how strange or disconnected from reality it is results in loud cries of " RACIST!!!', apparently for questioning the dogmatic narrative.

To make the issue even harder to comprehend is that, almost without exception, the BLM attackers of white privilege don't appreciate being lumped together and stereotyped with other black people, yet they do that very thing to white people, and don't hesitate to make broad sweeping (and negative) generalizations about them. Of course some who do this may engage in the tactic with a sense of irony, in order to make some relevant point, but most that I've argued with don't appear to even be aware of the inconsistency, or to feel the need to offer some justification for it beyond the platitude that only those with power can be racist.

As a pragmatist, I can't fathom how anyone in a position of influence would purposely alienate and marginalize the group they represent, when even the possibility to expand your base of support exists potentially. But I'm probably missing some important feature of BLM that would make the strategy intelligible, or the seemingly favorable portrayal BLM received in the media, at least until it got out of hand and cops started getting killed. The public visibility of BLM - perpetuated by major media outlets and prominent politicians - seemed to coincide with a growing sense of anger amongst Trump's supporters, specifically against a 'system' they were finally beginning to see as rigged against them by both traditional Republicans and Democrats. Probably just coincidence.

Anyhow I don't want to turn this into a discussion of BLM, and I'm probably connecting dots haphazardly. I just found the timing and emphasis of BLM to be interesting. I do know of the taped killings and how those played a role, but I began to wonder how certain issues gain prominence for a time and what role the media has in this. And who owns the media outlets? And do they have a vested interest in stirring up certain groups against each other? If manipulation via divide and conquer has even a hint of truth, I'd imagine it's due more to instinctive self-preservation of those who dominate politics and business and media than a coordinated and self-conscious conspiracy amongst them.

Apologies to any who read this for the disconnected rambling. I'm on guard against turning into a conspiracy nut, although I do believe people with similar interests conspire collectively to protect those interests. That seems a pretty rational if not ethical thing to do.

I'm starting to think at least part of this negative portrayal of the average Trump supporter - or Alt-Right - is a calculated attempt by 'elites' to fend off criticisms of a status quo that benefits them at the expense of working class folk. This is achieved through association of hostility to globalization and neoliberal economics with white racism and xenophobia.

For a long time this demographic stood firmly within the Republican fold, at the expense of their own economic interests no less, but this is no longer the case and the free market fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party appears to be collaborating with the Democratic elite to marginalize the very group they exploited for the past 40 or so years through implicitly racist imagery.

One obviously needn't be a racist of xenophobe to feel bitterness towards the growing disparity in wealth and power between the absurdly wealthy and everyone else -- but of course no respectable white person wants to be accused of racism or xenophobia, so we distance ourselves from those uneducated dolts and whatever they stand for. By doing so, we prove our own sophistication and membership amongst our 'respectable' and progressive fellow citizens. Pretty straightforward but effective strategy.

I'm also beginning to think that BLM and other divisive movements are being fomented at this precise moment when that old concatenation of power and interest are, or could have been, under their greatest threat from a broad grassroots movement of disadvantaged people of all races and type. It's the old divide and conquer approach which has worked in this country from its inception.

Anyhow the key now, to me at least, is to separate the essential from the inessential, the legitimate social, economic and political grievances of our current world from accidental traits of race and nationality. Not sure if this is even possible but it's worth thinking through: finding some common ground that people from different cultures and nationalities can agree upon that goes even deeper than the old communist notion of class warfare.

Yeah, I'm becoming a bit paranoid and cynical these days.

I like the first post, and the topic generally resonates a great deal with my experience. But couldn't there be another way to interpret this scenario? Nietzsche tried to give it a positive spin, and here's Heidegger's take on the puzzle:

"Celebration is self restraint, is attentiveness, is questioning, is meditating, is awaiting, is the step over into the more wakeful glimpse of the wonder- the wonder that a world is worlding around us at all, that there are beings rather than nothing, that things are and we ourselves are in their midst, that we ourselves are and yet barely know who we are, and barely know that we do not know all this."

So acute consciousness - free of comforting illusions - need not necessarily lead to despair, but can (admittedly in are cases) result in joyful affirmation or at least a more subdued sense of wonder and thankfulness. I waver on the issue quite a bit.

I think Willow articulated the basic position much better than I could have.

A groundless ground? Heidegger is still trying to ground our existence, to conceal the nothingness of Being, by turning the no thing of Being into a thing on which beings depend for existence. He's treating Being as others do God, Ideas, Will, Consciousness, Progress, etc., etc.

Like all those before him which he criticises, he tries to starve off terror by grounded ourselves in the eternal. In the face of the nothingness of Being, Heidegger has turned it into something to avoid the realisation that we are entirely finite and are given by nothing at all.

I agree with you. He seems to move in that direction - writing Being under erasure, be-ing, Beyn, etc. - but cannot entirely extricate himself from the "onto-theological" tendency he criticizes in almost all previous Western philosophy, save for maybe Heraclitus and Parmenides at the inception (according to his idiosyncratic and extremely interesting readings of them) of this tradition.

The paradoxical nature of the endeavor seems somewhat similar to Lao Tzu's meditations on the Tao or, to use a more modern example, Wittgenstein's investigation into the logical form of the world, which shows itself but cannot properly be said. This 'mystical' aspect of his thought is often neglected for the sake of more pragmatic (in the US with Rorty, Dreyfus et al) or existential readings (generally the French), but I'm convinced that Heidegger was a deeply 'spiritual' thinker always searching for some hint of the divine; not in some traditional otherworldly type way, but here and now and often in the most mundane and trivial things like a tree or a jug.

That's my interpretation. At the very least he was a passionate enemy of almost every facet of modern civilization, from its materialism, its consumerism, its fixation on productivity and efficiency, its alienated masses and the like. I can definitely see how many contemporary thinkers would not find him congenial, and his politics (as a romantic reactionary of sorts) were indeed drawn from his philosophy so not at all an aberration. But that's another matter.

Several years ago, I tried his so called magnum opus, Sein und Zeit, and thought it an almost unreadable, ponderous doorstopper of a tome best employed as a step ladder for toddlers than a book worth of study by serious philosophers. Perhaps some of his essays are better, but I wouldn't know yet. I have an anthology of his writings on my reading list which includes some of them, but I won't get to it for some time.

Ad hominem.

They're also ineradicable due to how language works.

Disagree.

It's okay, ignorance of these matters is widespread.

Then please disabuse me of my ignorance and point out pre-modern examples.

Look, if you want to have a discussion regarding the shortcomings of Heidegger's philosophy - in my opinion there are many - or any other topic relevant to what's under consideration, then I'm absolutely up for it. I have no desire to exchange further snarky comments with you that contribute nothing to the discussion. If that's your style, have at it, but you'll be doing it alone.

But even if he does work within the dualistic framework (Schopenhauer that is) he makes many important contributions to our understanding of human existence. I won't deny that at all. The ideas you've laid out here and in other threads always strike me as insightful, even when I don't entirely agree with them. There's a book on Heidegger's (largely unacknowledged) 'confrontation' with the Will that I've been interested in reading.

The line in German philosophy from Schopenhauer through Nietzsche and onto Heidegger is there, so it wouldn't surprise me if Heidegger was more influenced by Schop (even if indirectly through Nietzsche) than he let on. Many commentators have found the silence odd.

Well I think Heidegger would argue that modern philosophy is flawed in that it sees consciousness as something that occurs in my head as opposed to being out in the world. There is no 'inside' for him. If Schopenhauer was able to disentangle this subject/object split in a way that most modern thinkers do not appear to (even existentialists like Sartre, apparently), then I stand corrected and will acknowledge the revolutionary nature of his thought. I have The World as Will and Representation and am inspired to go back and read it - it's been over a decade since I've done so and my memory is admittedly not very good.

First off, I respect your willingness to look into Heidegger in detail to get a better understanding of him. It amazes me that people will criticize what they have made no attempt to understand, especially on a philosophy forum. This is obviously a rare but admirable trait.

My own opinion - and I'm by no means a professional philosopher or expert on Heidegger - is that I do think the effort to understand him is rewarded in new insight into some of the shortcomings of our Western philosophical tradition. According to H, the concepts handed down to us through the likes of Plato and Descartes ultimately infiltrate the 'common sense' experience and everyday language of society as a whole, so philosophy is far from the harmless and insignificant endeavor people think it is. As our understanding of things has gotten progressively levelled down to their being nothing more than exploitable resources, the task of tracing concepts back to their origin becomes all the more urgent IMO as it frees up other possibilities for thinking.

I do think you're right to see the 'early' Heidegger as trying to find ahistorical structures of human existence. He saw this too and tried to extract himself from the tendency not long after the publication of Being and Time. I made the mistake of not clarifying the difference in my first post. Here's my quick summation:

The ready-to-hand and present-to-hand modes of being can be understood as the difference between the holistic, context-dependent and absorbed way we use tools and materials in our world to achieve our goals vs. the context-free and atomistic way things show themselves when we remove ourselves from practical involvement and just stare at them (they become Ideas, objects, sense-data etc.). So in a certain sense these two basic modes of revealing would appear to be possibilities which cut across historical distinctions. Practical and Theoretical as two modes of Being most societies would at the very least be able to make sense of, regardless of particular historical circumstances. But there's much in H's analysis that I'm leaving out that does make his appropriation of the dichotomy unique and illuminating. Don't recall whether the ready-at-hand is more 'authentic' than present-to-hand in H, but he does refer to it as the more 'primordial' relationship we have with the world, which he generally used as a stand in or code word for authenticity.

Gellasenheit is a concept of the 'later' Heidegger, the one much more immersed in the 'history of Being', and has to do with a particular way we comport (or attune) ourselves to the world. It's characterized by neither practical engagement nor theoretical detachment, but some sort of 'active disengagement' for lack of a better term which is equally far from indifference and aggressive instrumentalism. I seem to recall Heidegger talking about an active 'letting-be' of beings. So beings can reveal themselves in a variety of ways to us, which points to the 'ontological difference' between beings and Being.

Being is nothing, literally no thing. But this no-thing is what allows for our understanding of anything, which is what makes us human in fact, and so lies at the heart of our existence. A frightening thought perhaps. We try to conceal this groundless ground (Heidegger's term) which allows for anything to come to 'be' in the first place. We seek some sort of eternal foundation - 'Ideas', God, Will, Consciousness etc. - to stave off the terror that strikes us upon genuine insight that we are ultimately a sort of emptiness or clearing or lighting (Think Heraclitus' Fire, Lighting) in which things come to presence.

If Schopenhauer has said similar things, especially in a more accessible manner, that would be awesome. I have no special relationship or loyalty to Heidegger. I think the matter of Being and human existence is difficult, and at the very least he tried to get us away from comfortable complacency on this most significant issue in the hopes of reopening it for future thinkers. In this he's a continuation of Nietzsche.

But I'll end my rambling here for now...

I'm not trying to persuade you of any position, just calling your lazy dismissal of Heidegger unwarranted. I can't speak for others you may have had in mind in your own blanket assertion. But if you are genuinely interested in having a conversation on the matter, you can start by revealing what work(s) of his you have read, and also what specific 'obfuscatory' passages you had in mind.

Anyhow, the idea that we get a deeper understanding of the world by removing ourselves from practical involvement with it in favor of detached gazing has indeed gone on for 2500 years, so Heidegger would agree with your historical take on the matter going way back to the ancients. Once that theoretical standpoint is challenged, many other things come in for questioning. Like the idea of an inner/outer split between subject and object. These, to me, are extremely questionable presuppositions.

Descartes development of course has many precursors, but also represents a significant development which in turn frames the issues and concerns of modern philosophy. For example, the idea that the external world or other minds may not exist was, to my knowledge, not part of the Greek or Medieval Christian experience.

Also, I think the main reason Heidegger didn't hold Schopenhauer in very high regard as a thinker (unjustly IMO) was the latter's apparent belief in a timeless human nature. In this he falls much more on the side of the existentialists, along with that other 'obfuscatory' thinker, Hegel, who do indeed see humans as historically conditioned and devoid of any eternal qualities.

That doesn't mean (pace Sartre) that humans are free to create whatever meaning they choose - H's lifelong meditation was on the relatedness of human existence to Being as it unfolds historically. He situated the understanding of ourselves and our world as manifested through modern philosophy (with its emphasis on subjectivity, objectivity, willing, sense date, etc.) as but one particular instantiation within the history of Being, and not the only or inevitable one. The way we understand ourselves and our world appears to undergo periodic shifts that are not entirely of our own making.

Outside of that important distinction there are interesting parallels, such as the clear appreciation for certain aspects of Eastern thought felt by both H and S. Heidegger's notion of gellasenheit as the highest possibility of human existence seems akin to Schopenhauer's understanding of the quieting of the Will needed to produce or appreciate genuine art. Similar ideas can be traced to Taoism and Buddhism and appear to represent a new way of being, beyond willing and striving, to one characterized by a non-instrumental relationship to people and things. Julian Young has written a book on this matter that I'd like to eventually read.

Anyhow I'm not trying to take anything away from Schopenhauer. Heidegger did not consider himself an existentialist, and was in fact adamant that existentialists like Sartre were superficial. But there are aspects of his philosophy (drawn from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche) that inspired later existentialists. The most important issue - and it was never fully decided - was the question of human existence as it pertains to the question of Being. Schopenhauer seems to have had all the 'big questions' figured out, whereas Heidegger was much more cautious and probing. In this too I think share Heidegger's lifelong perplexity over Schopenhauer's dogmatic confidence that he had uncovered the eternal Truth. I feel my own existence, and Being generally, to be an enigma.

Heidegger made outstanding contributions to our understanding of the human condition. Not sure why he comes in for so much hate on this matter. Even philosophers who understandably despise his politics (e.g. Habermas) acknowledge the monumental achievement of Being and Time. Sure, he had to carve out a new conceptual framework that's extremely frustrating initially, but neologisms like being-in-the-world and are a significant advancement over the previous subject/object framework in which Kant, Schopenhauer and the rest of post-Cartesian philosophy seems to operate, which is laden with highly dubious metaphysical assumptions.

darthbarracuda,

Overall I agree with much of what you've written, but I think there may be other motivating forces than those you mentioned. For example, self-esteem could be the byproduct of a noble and generous disposition, and may not necessarily be founded upon insecurities. Believe it or not, some people find purpose in contributing to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of others, and are not in the least inspired by the type of material goods and status symbols that you rightly discern as the prime motivating force behind much individual action.

Not to broaden the topic, but I think looking at possible counter-examples and exceptions to our own perspective may be a good thing. Perhaps the complexity and variety and ambiguity of life - especially when it concerns something as uncanny as human existence - could be even more terrifying than the eventual death of a (encapsulated and stable) self that never really existed as anything but a fiction in the first place.

Not trying to be antagonistic or combative here, but do you think it's possible that you've succumbed to a sort of narrow, all-encompassing dogmatism whose primary motivation is the boosting of your own self-esteem? Hey, it feels good to think we're more knowledgeable or wise or enlightened than the gullible masses, that we're brave enough to handle the Truth while they persist in cowardly illusions. This may be just one more fiction. Just a thought.

Interesting contributions from all here.

I don't have too much to add other than the counter-intuitive observation that, contrary to the view that the finiteness of life renders all things meaningless, it is precisely its finitude that opens us up to a world of value and significance. A life without limitations would be even more pointless than one in which our eventual death serves as a boundary spurring us to take a stand on things, to decide what's significant and what's not, etc.

This close proximity to death, to me (as someone who over the past 3 years has had serious health scares, had one close young friend die suddenly and another commit suicide) at least, explains why some people who've had a brush with death or some other traumatic experience oftentimes come out of it with a new appreciation for even the 'simple' things in life, many of which BC outlined above. At the very least I can say that life is not boring - more a vacillation between joy and terror for those 'awake' to the world and hyper-conscious....but definitely not boring.

And someone else mentioned frustrated desires as part of the inevitable psychological pain associated with living in addition to the obvious physical pain, but being ensnared to the overwhelming social pressure to conform can be overcome. In my opinion this is precisely what can, or may, facilitate a deep shift in our outlook on life, from utter despair to a sense of thankfulness for even the seemingly mundane and trivial. Generally speaking, for thoughtful people - like the antinatalists here perhaps - chasing after the latest consumer goods, doing whatever you have to do to gain social standing amongst people you can't really relate to, and other things of that nature would indeed eventually result in something akin to a living hell.

So while I don't consider myself an 'existentialist' by any stretch, I do agree with the basic idea (if I understand it correctly) that there could be a strong relation between an anticipation of my death and an 'inner' call to freedom from those 'external' forces imposing their will and dictating how we live, what we value, etc. Could there be some sort wider social awakening? Some romanticized cultural upheaval or yearning for authenticity? I don't know, but I do think that making a positive impact on the lives of others is probably the best feeling one can have, and that indicates, yet again to me, that this universe is not all horrible, that somehow the microcosm of humanity contains an incredible amount of nobility and compassion that must somehow already be contained in the larger cosmos. It's almost a performative contradiction when antinatalists argue for the ending of life on moral or ethical grounds.

I would reiterate that contingencies of life may change my view tomorrow (if something horrible happened to one of my boys, for example) and draw me into the antinatalist camp, but I can also envision a life well-lived whose end results in a joyous celebration. I'm not at all against suicide either in particular situations where one feels they are in too much pain or have nothing left to offer this world in any way. I agree with Nietzsche in this, that we should not cling to life when it's no longer desirable or beneficial to us or anyone else. Having said that I would not want any antinatalists here (or elsewhere) to kill themselves but instead to rethink and experience things anew, from a different perspective of awe and wonder.

Those are the final musings of what will be considered my naïve and/or masochistic point of view. Like BC said (or implied), again perhaps paradoxically, those who've suffered the most are often the least likely to turn antinatalist. A disputable position no doubt, but borne out through my experience - which is a million times more powerful than any argument which only speaks to my intellect.

Thanks for the quick clarification on Schopenhauer's holistic philosophy. Interesting and insightful views on art and ethics -- I'll have to go back and take a look at that. The quieting of the individual will and subsequent ability to see things beyond their strictly utilitarian value (something that seems extremely rare, especially in the modern world) is a very appealing notion to me. I also appreciate the idea of transcending our narrow and grasping egos for a much wider perspective that views us as active participants in a wider movement of Being or God or whatever you'd like to call it. Those do seem to be the general 'truths' of authentic religious experience based on what little I've read.

But I do wonder where the original impulse to suppress the Will comes from? It would have to come from that very same Will (where else?) if it is in fact the noumenal thing-in-itself behind individual appearances. I don't know, but maybe the longing for truth and beauty and compassion that crashes into some of our lives somehow points to the contradictory nature of the Will, and that it is not all as horrible and evil (or amoral and indifferent) as some make it out to be.

As Heraclitus - the philosopher of strife - noted: without injustices the name of justice means what? And God is winter/summer, day/night, war/peace, etc. This is purely speculative on my part, but I get the intuitive feeling at times that without that initial fall or degradation or evil that afflicts us (both individually and collectively) there could be no redemption or hope or ultimate joy. Which side takes precedence? This is where I imagine I'd part ways with Schopenhauer.

I would also add that I have a respect for the place where the AN position comes from, i.e. a genuine concern to eliminate future suffering of other potential people. In that sense it isn't 'subjectivist' at all - above I was thinking along the philosophical position in which Schopenhauer (if I understand him correctly) works as laid out by Descartes and Kant. The isolated and autonomous ego. That's a commendable and extremely noble aim IMO, but is still a partial and one-sided perspective.

I'm not trying to sound cryptic, but I think the AN position - as I understand it - thinks both too much and too little of human existence. Too much in the sense that only a guarantee of eternal life untouched by adversity or pain would justify bringing a new child into the world. Too little in the sense that it works within a very narrow and seemingly hedonistic understanding of the aims and ends of human being-in-the-world. A radical reinterpretation or reevaluation of said existence is, to me, a prerequisite for the possibility of gaining a new perspective on such a big and important topic.

This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure are not. — darthbarracuda

This is one possible interpretation. It's been pointed out that there are many people - not all benighted fools mind you - who do not agree with it and who would gladly sacrifice something of their lives for their progeny. Maybe that's part of the issue: starting from a subjectivist standpoint and failing to tie our own story in with a wider narrative or historical unfolding, we're left with the shopkeeper's cost/benefit mentality which is IMO totally unworthy of the magnitude and profundity of human existence.

My opinion (or truth) is that despite a great deal of suffering I'm thankful my parents brought me into this world. I would not presume to take my experience as the final word on human existence, or use the limited perspective I've acquired through the years to pass judgment on life generally. From what I've seen Anti-Natalists make many strong and rational arguments to bolster the position, but this tendency to make universal and unqualified claims about the undesirability of human existence strikes me as incredibly arrogant and condescending. Perhaps a better tack would be to re-examine the way we live before deciding whether it's worth anything or not. Yeah I know that sounds condescending too, but it comes from my own existential and 'spiritual' struggles, much different than yours perhaps.

My opinion may shift, but I hope that I'm never so entitled as to think that only a life free of suffering or death or anything that doesn't involve any occasional struggle or pain would be worth living. The more deeply I reflect upon it (like Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky et al have) the more I think that it is that life which would be pointless and absurd. I'm not so sure I'd even want to live forever as the thought gives me chills. I try to embrace the constant flow and shifting nature of things, even this self I'm so obsessed with protecting.

Anyhow the place where this refutation comes from is very intimate and personal. I totally respect others who disagree with it, but for some reason the respect isn't reciprocated and the assumption becomes that I - and others who think along similar lines - must be ignorant of the Truth. But the idea of some eternal, all-embracing Truth would seem to be an illusion. At the very least maybe what I'm trying to suggest is: let's acknowledge our own biases and assumptions and limited perspectives.

Democracy itself was an ideal (still is in fact), and 'idealists' have led the way, often at the cost of their lives, against religious persecution, slavery, racism, imperialism,and a variety of other things which, to be fair, should be placed next to the more egregious abuses it has led to. To live a life in which we don't consider any ideals or values or people worth fighting for seems, to my idealistic frame of mind, a pretty meaningless existence.

Doubtless a more apathetic or nihilistic mindset is less prone to violence and chaos than the crusading mentality of the idealist - but also less likely to love and hope and long for a world with more passion and beauty and 'justice'. There, spoken like a true idealist against the coldhearted 'realist'. Somehow the virtues of both positions need to be synthesized in a thoughtful manner rather than set up as incompatible enemies; I think it can be done to a certain extent.

And so as not to derail the topic into Islam bashing, I would argue that the psychological strength of Fascism, if it has any, would lie in its ability to overcome perpetual class conflict and the liberal focus on the narrow self-interest of isolated and oftentimes antagonistic egos for the sake of some collective goal(s). Of course a charismatic leader, much like a good coach or manager (bad analogy perhaps), somehow inspires the individuals who compose the organization to work harmoniously towards clearly defined ends that benefit all, resulting in the alignment of self-interest and group-interest. Alienation is overcome and all are inspired to give their best for the wellbeing of the group in which their identity is grounded.

I think people, generally speaking of course, long to be a part of something larger than themselves, and in liberal-democratic-capitalist society this desire is often left unsatisfied, or diverted to more benign expressions like supporting a sports team or political party or church or whatever. The Fascist country would seem to model itself on the family - albeit the enlarged family of the nation - and many people who have children know the pleasure (yes pleasure) and deep sense of satisfaction that results from working long hours and undergoing many hardships and sacrifices for the sake of those you love. To repeat, Fascism would seem to derive whatever advantage it has over liberal democracies from this psychological aspect. Obviously religions and even some political movements (e.g. Communism) attempt to tap into this human longing for transcendence, but Fascism has the added advantage of not extending this transcendence out too far to be unrealistic for all but the most idealist amongst us, but of constraining it within the perhaps more reasonable cultural, historical and linguistic 'family' to which we belong. Is it necessarily racist? Doesn't seem to be. Is it necessarily expansive? Why so? It could just as easily recognize the dignity of your family and your right to decide your collective fate as long as the two interests don't collide (they usually do it seems, but not necessarily so).

This is in no way meant to be an endorsement of Fascism but only an attempt to understand it beyond the usual character flaws to which those who succumbed to it are accused of. I'm just thinking out loud here by the way and, obviously, this is not my area of expertise.

I find it hard to see how Islam can be aligned in any serious way with Fascism if a fundamental feature of the latter is it's aggressive nationalism and exclusionary ideology. Call it what you want but it has little if anything in common with European Fascism, unless we expand this concept to the point of vacuity.

To my understanding Islam is, in theory at least, universalist in outlook grounded in its claim to transcend the particularities of race or locality or social status. That's not to say that Islam - even in it's 'authentic' form - cannot be aggressive and expansive, but however much we disagree with the aim or theology behind it would seem to be about the most extreme ideological enemy of Fascist governments imaginable, assuming of course that state worship and its corresponding exclusivity are essential features. Now a religion like Islam can obviously be appropriated and manipulated by political powers to be used for nefarious ends, but I'm inclined to think we should view these as cynical perversions rather than genuine expressions.

Anyhow it also seems like a huge challenge to pin down exactly what Fascism entails, not to mention distinguishing between authentic and false interpretations of Islam, so referring to something as Islamo-Fascism does not seem helpful to me at this point for anything other than the negative emotional response it calls forth. But I'm open to a more detailed outlining of the interconnection between Islam and Fascism.

Beyond a certain point I don't think continued economic growth is that important if we're talking about the overall well being of society (whatever that means can be discussed), which to me should be the vision which guides all other considerations. I would at the very least give the radical Left credit for questioning the assumptions at work guiding both capitalists and socialists. As Heidegger astutely noted, capitalism and communism are - metaphysically speaking - the same.

Sounds outrageous, but there do seem to be many shared assumptions about man and world and their relation which underlie and guide both positions, despite their appearance of being at complete odds with each another. The old-style socialist wants a more just distribution of wealth, but generally speaking he or she doesn't question the idea that individual happiness and contentment is synonymous with improved material well-being, or that social well-being is dependent upon continued economic 'progress'.

I think a more important development than economic progress would be a piecemeal shift in values from those fixated upon the material well-being of people as their primary means towards happiness, in the direction of more 'spiritual' or 'transcendent' ones. Of course this position is often ridiculed as outdated or unscientific or mystical or romantic and quickly dismissed, but I do believe that, generally speaking, we yearn for respect and recognition and deep connection with other people. Capitalism, as it is currently practiced, is too hedonistic and alienating and destructively competitive to satisfy this longing.

Perhaps a shift in deeper values will lead to a thriving capitalist society, one in which the unbridled lust for wealth and status is tempered by ethical imperatives to treat people as ends in themselves, and also a shared sense of stewardship of our localities and the wider environment generally. I'm inclined to believe that we're both material and 'spiritual' beings, and our happiness is contingent upon that realization and the consequent attempt to fulfill both aspects. I've worked at jobs where there's a genuine sense of harmony and concern amongst the employer and employees, and this is deeply satisfying for all involved. I recall Nietzsche mentioning somewhere that if capitalists had the slightest trace of nobility then socialism would have never arisen.

Yeah I think I may be losing my mind guys but I believe every bit of what I just wrote. Don't have all the answers but I'm confident I can recognize a dead end when I see one, having traveled down quite a few in my life.

Glad to be here by the way. Nice place.