And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. — Wayfarer

It's just what it looks like.

I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy? — Wayfarer

The polls are looking favorable for Trump, so it may well work.

Incidentally, I have met quite a few pro Trump Australians and they are not bogans (rednecks), but generally thoughtful about politics. In their mind civic life and government has become mired in political correctness and is rotten to the core and they really dig the idea of a vulgar mob boss figure like Trump kicking the system about for 4 years. You're right that this inherent cynicism about the status quo is what helps give Trump power. But we live in a cynical age, a fact which a successful candidate can probably harness, so I wonder how useful it is to push back against the zeitgeist. Your Don Quixote avatar may be apropos...

‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’. — Wayfarer

I don't think it will matter. They see the trial as some bullshit political witch-hunt and a significant percentage of voters don't seem to care, so I think full steam ahead Team Trump. I think the game of decency in politics (which was alwasy wafer thin) has evaporated.

To me, relationships are dynamic, mutually conditioning two-way streets. Normal relationships, that is. — baker

I'm not really sure what I am trying to say. I recognize that relationships evolve over time. Or devolve. My original point was that I find people don't really seem to change much over time. In as much as they are always recognizable as variations of themselves. But this is sounding vague and pointless, so I will contemplate the matter some more.

What is truly important is how you live your life. The meaning of an individual life is determined by the quality of that lived life. — George Fisher

You generate a lot more questions with this.

These are not givens. They are expressing assumptions - values and a set of preferences. It may be that it is better to be indifferent.

Whose definition of 'quality' do we use as a basis to make this assessment?

The only hazard to this question is whether it causes you to doubt your belief in the principles that guide your life. — George Fisher

This is surely the job of philosophy - to examine one's flawed ideas and presuppositions, many of which might be unreasonable or harmful. Just because one has principles does not mean they are the right ones. I suspect philosophical inquiry should often be discomforting.

I can hold my own in discussions on theology. However, the older I get though the more I have trouble accepting the various dogmas that religion presents. — George Fisher

Various dogmas or various religions? There are hundreds.

The reason I pursue questions of the meaning of life is that I need something to hang my way of life on. — George Fisher

This sounds like putting the cart before the horse, or is this just the words you have used? Sounds like you have a way of life and are now seeking, perhaps, some ad hoc justification for some value system?

If my life is going to be of value, there has to be meaning in it. I think we are all trying to grab onto meaning so that we can feel confident that we are on the right path. However, it is possible to determine from observation what a proper way of life is. T — George Fisher

I think perhaps the best way is to give up on 'proper' ways of life since this sounds the religion you say you have moved on from.

How do we determine from observation what the proper way of life is?

This can happen even without a God. — George Fisher

The problem with belief in gods is that they do not provide the anchor some think they do. Beliefs in gods do not provide objective ways to live. Since all religions, their sects and individual believers make subjective choices about how they interpret god's will, we can really say that religious meaning is pluralistic and far from certain. Even within the one religion, moral positions vary considerably. It is created like any other meaning, an expression of personal preferences.

Jason Werberloff doesn't drink because he believes he would die through the process of becoming drunk, and a new person born, through the process of becoming sober. I don't take that line, but i find it very interesting. — AmadeusD

As someone who has been drunk more times than I can remember, I have (by that logic) therefore been reborn many thousands of times. All I can say is that I feel no different to my former incarnations - I look the same, I have the same preferences and disposition and memories, pets always seemed to recognise me and no one has noticed an iota of difference. How does one determine when one has actually been reborn? :wink:

All of this reminds me of famous Orwell essay, Politics and the English Language (1946) he writes:

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...'

Even close to 80 years ago this word was seen as devalued currency. It can be used to describe anyone from a Tory Prime Minister to a supermarket manager. Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games.

If it's not 'Plato's Theory of Forms'?
Maybe you resonate with the concept of 'Tao'? — YiRu Li

Neither of those resonate with me.

What you said is this -

If a 'giver' acknowledges that poor people also 'belong to' the category of humans, they can feel empathy or compassion towards them.
Alternatively, they may consider the possibility that one day they themselves could face financial struggles. — YiRu Li

This in Western terms generally expresses 1) a human rights perspective and 2) reciprocal altruism.

Although I have not read all the posts here with great care, it seems that some posters, at least, would find the idea of an eternal existence to be tiring and dreary at best, insufferable at worst. For my part, I can imagine being perfectly happy to "carry on" forever. — expos4ever

I think it's down to temperament, this one. Some people think they find the idea exhilarating, others imagine it will be tedious. Generally this probably reflects how you feel about your own life now as a finite creature. Personally, I think even the idea of living to 100 seems pretty awful. Even with good health and minimal challenges. I generally find the older I am, the more self-contained I become and the less interesting life becomes. I have had many experiences, lots of fun and love but frankly, there's only so much of it I want or need. It starts repeating on you. I suspect an appetite for life is a little like an appetite for food. Some people seem to have no off switch and others are more quickly sated.

I agree.

Does Joshs' post that I've now quoted twice say nothing to you? — baker

I've never noticed this. It makes perfect sense though.

You say, "I've never really felt anyone around me has changed much over time". Or is it that you stick with your first impressions of someone? — baker

How would I know? I just responded to the idea that we notice people chaining. I don't, generally. Of course you might have noticed that I wrote earlier:

I would also add that I never know who a person really is. — Tom Storm

So perhaps 'first impressions' are not all that significant to me either.

Is it 'Plato's Theory of Forms'?

It seems peculiar; essential to the world, yet it takes us a considerable amount of time to comprehend. — YiRu Li

I think it is empathy. I suspect humans, as a social species, are hard wired for empathy which is likely foundational to morality and human rights. It helps us survive as a speciies if we all collaborate and work together for the common good. The advantage of this is often described by philosophers and evolutionary biologists as reciprocal altruism.

Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, — Gnomon

That's kind of the point we have been discussing. The resentment within populations which seeks antidemocratic 'strong men' to deliver them from political correctness, technocrats and educated urbanites. That's Rorty's point too.

Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, — Gnomon

Yes, I think this is the problem when people play with fire.

The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out.
— RogueAI
Clearly, either you've not been paying attention and/or you're just choking on reactionary grievance. :mask: — 180 Proof

:up:

I'm very much concerned with why people actually do what they do. — Pantagruel

:up: The classic question of the modern era.

From what I have seen (and experienced) the real challenge to reason is less an external than an internal one. We don't discover, embrace, and implement optimal truths because, at some perplexing level, we don't want to. — Pantagruel

I'm not a theorist or a psychologist but I have worked with people (often at their worst: suicidal, overdosing, psychotic, violent) for 3 decades. People are not overly rational creatures. We tend to come at things from emotion and retrofit reasons and justifications. We tend to be reactive - a product of experiences - which we process emotionally to make sense of them. I think we deceive ourselves a lot and hold accounts of ourselves and our world that are visceral and inchoate and unexamined.

I stand with Collingwood's view, that everyone has a philosophy. The fact that it hasn't evolved to a reflective stage is central to his model. — Pantagruel

I've never made up my mind about this. I suspect it doesn't amount to a philosophy as such. More a disposition and a series of values which may coalesce as a kind of worldview. Do people hold presuppositions that inform these worldview? I believe they do to some extent. I also believe people often make choices that contradict these presuppositions because these 'feel better' in the doing.

Thus, the overwhelming majority of human beings only have worldviews (re: fantasy (e.g. mythology, theology, ideology ...) and not philosophies (re: reflection) which they struggle – as you say, Pantagruel, "the real challenge" – to attain as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives. — 180 Proof

I suspect this is right. Whatever worldview they hold appears to be 'shallow' and tends not to be the product of examination. I guess underpinning these 'mythologies' are some vague presuppositions. Probably notions similar to: "Everything must makes sense." "God will take care of it." "No one can be trusted."

I'm interested in an example of what might count as a philosophy and how this might differ to a worldview.

I think it is true that most of us partake in a type of philosophical thinking, particularly when we encounter challenges - death and suffering - and we may even use some philosophically derived ideas or tools to process these challenges. Most people certainly end up developing beliefs and assumptions about how the world is which may flirt with the key questions of philosophy. But I personally come down on the side that this is generally unsystematic, impressionistic, emotionally driven and often predicated upon unexamined templates provided by superstitions or religions.

It's an interesting question, particularly for the older male.

My routine is boring but effective.

I have never been inside a gym or partaken in any sport (apart from Karate for several years when young). I used to drink a lot of booze and if I had kept it up, I would probably be dead by now. So I quit alcohol in my late 40's. I quit smoking at 39. I'm 57.

I got rid of my car so I walk most places. I live in the middle of my city, so this is easy. I almost never eat cakes, chocolate, candies, desserts or drink sodas (soft drinks). I eat two meals a day (no breakfast, which has always been a preference). I do some stretching exercises each day for my back. I have a couple of prolapsed discs which have needed no intervention for years, thanks to the stretching. I taught myself to stand up from the floor without touching anything. Not easy. I try to avoid processed foods and sugar and I eat a lot of greens and drink mainly water. I weigh the same as I did when I was 20.

Unfortunately, these days when I go to for walks with people my age, I often have to slow down and take a break so they can catch up. Many of my friends seem to be overweight, slow and sweaty. The food choices and health issues can become conspicuous post 50.

That seems to be an excellent frame and good explanation.

Is this suggesting (i'm enquiring, not side-eyeing, to be clear) that we could expect other bad actors to be implicated? Trump being essentially a patsy? — AmadeusD

Like most leaders, Trump can't achieve what he wants without allies, supporters, advisors, confidants, etc. I imagine his capacity to choose wisely here will not be good. The previous administration certainly demonstrated this. But who knows what this could bring next time?

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas... — AmadeusD

The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. These folk generally lack the capacity to see that who they choose as advisors and who they invite into the sphere of influence can be dangerous and destructive. I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper.

but I do not think we are saying anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. — AmadeusD

And this is simply a difference in how we read the events and personalities, I would say.

I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. — AmadeusD

Same as above. However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship. I would think it might help in motivation.

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation. — AmadeusD

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined.

Why don't more Republicans and Republican-leaning people think gun violence is a problem? — BC

Is it because they generally think that gun violence is a way to deal with social problems?

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s? — AmadeusD

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. It just needs the right ingredients. Dealing with dissidents or enemies through imprisonment and murder is an eternal favorite, forget the 1940's. Guantanamo Bay?

I'm not saying this will happen like it currently happens in Russia, but I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric.

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me. — AmadeusD

Cool. Maybe this is what we agree on.

I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular. — AmadeusD

Fair enough. I guess it's just down to how one interprets the phenomenon. I tend to think he's wanting absolute power and to destroy enemies and there may be people crazy enough in key roles to assist him in this project.

Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics. — schopenhauer1

Totally agree.

That he thinks that as president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. That he supports the unitary executive theory, and intends to implement it. That he demands fealty to himself and not the office. That a significant portion of Congress will not oppose him. That he has engaged in an effective campaign against truth and facts, aided by a mainstream propaganda machine. That he uses the judiciary as his instrument and attacks it as his enemy. That he has in place both plans and henchmen to consolidate power in a way he was not able to the first time around. That he is riding the wave of the rise of autocratic leaders around the world, and that he has cozy upped to them. — Fooloso4

All this sounds ominous enough and it seems to match my understanding of the situation. I would not think it would take a genius to imagine what could come next. Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc.

That's an interesting read of it.

I guess what I see is nascent fascism. The pointers are there, in his words and deeds but he needs another term to consolidate the work - join the dots - so that his nascent fascistic tendencies can come to completion.

However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think this is probably the key.

It's more mafioso mentality. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity.

I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course.

Interesting . Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism.

We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism. — AmadeusD

I wish I could share this view. I tend to agree with this:

Trump/MAGA is unashamedly fascist. He’s openly boasted that he thinks the constitution should be suspended, the public service purged, and his enemies subjected to prosecution. He has a strong movement if polling data is to be believed. Many are saying that he will win the election, and although I don’t believe that he will, the acceptance of his threats of fascism and the escalation of violent threats against the judiciary and other institutions is alarming in the extreme. — Wayfarer

Out of interest, if an American leader did have fascist inclinations what would you expect to see?

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently?

Lay it out for us. I want to hear your argument.

As I said, abstracts don’t work for me. Maybe you could demonstrate?

It's Amazing you can see these logics from poor people's view. — YiRu Li

What do you mean? Are you saying that it is amazing that we could know that food, housing, medical treatment are critical to people who are poor and have none of these things?

The USA has an armed populace.
— AmadeusD

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism.

Don't leave us hanging, tell us why. :wink:

Not much I can say except that I hope Jan 6 isn't Turmp's equivalent to the Munich Putsch of 1923.

So people are thinking about fascism, one way and the other. — BC

Sure are. Us included...

When I read this 1998 Richard Rorty quote in 2016, I wondered the same thing.

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998

:up:

...our consciousness acts in the way it does and why we experience things as we do, but this basic reason has evolved into such a complex form that we've basically become lost in that complexity and produced this illusion that is our qualia, our inner experience of life.

We are highly advanced prediction machines, driven by emotions that guide our survival. Those are the strings we don't see and which gives us the illusion of complex experience. — Christoffer

Are your notions here based on work by Daniel Dennett or Thomas Metzinger?

The thing is I don't find such allegories (shall we say abstractions?) helpful. I would like to see an articulated social policy strategy, along with a specific a plan for implementation in the real world. Sorry, but when it comes to dealing with human disadvantage I am a concrete thinker.

For instance -

**Existence:**
Nothing on Earth existed in the past, and nothing will persist in the future.
Throughout time, only the universe or heaven endures.
Consequently, everything on Earth shares the same transitory nature. — YiRu Li

So what? I take this as a given. But it is not a helpful frame in dealing with a homeless woman and child on the street who are starving. I can't see how this is any different to the economist Keynes' often misused quote, "In the long run we are all dead".

When viewed from outer space, everything on Earth appears minute.
Similarly, considering the expansive timeframe from the beginning of the universe until now, everything on Earth virtually exists within an infinitesimally small span.
In this context, everything on Earth is alike, as each entity is extremely small or exists for an exceedingly brief period. — YiRu Li

A very unhelpful frame when dealing with a man who is dying of cancer in a deserted building, unable to get medical treatment and any type of assistance owing to poverty. How do we apply the above: "Don't worry, Sir. Your suffering doesn't amount to anything significant when measured against the infinity of space and the tininess of our planet?" As an approach to the matter of human suffering, I would call this sociopathic.

In most instances inequality and injustice equate to suffering and exclusion. These can be addressed with practical support and resources. We also know from history and current interventions around the world that the suffering and inequality can be alleviated.

There is no question that there are some people who think poverty is merely a fact of life (some may even misuse a Bible quote from John, "For the poor always ye have with you...") and therefore can be safely avoided. This is generally a variety of right wing thinking that I personally find abhorrent and sociopathic.

No wonder. Ever notice how who you think the other person in your relationship is changes over time, and who they and you are changes through being affected by the reciprocal interaction of the growing relationship itself?
— Joshs
Thank you for formulating this so eloquently! — baker

Interesting. I've never really felt anyone around me has changed much over time. Certainly not my partner or significant friends or long term colleagues. If anything people seem to be remarkably consistent. If by change we mean one is no longer being able to anticipate reactions and choices made by the person we think we know. As to how well we 'know' anyone, well that's a matter for a range of interpretations.

Some (like George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist and philosopher) might say this is his brilliance in framing - in recognizing that consistency doesn't count if you want to dominate discourse where it matters. He 'cuts through' regardless. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bullshit - as we used to say.

:up:

:up: Good point.

I hear you and thanks for the talk. I am interested in your perspective.

These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one. — AmadeusD

Got ya. Yes, my point is more that their sense making of the world precludes god (functionally) when they work to explain anything at all (from creation to morality) the god hypothesis is precluded from their repertoire. If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant.

In some ways this is merely about the meaning of words. — Leontiskos

That's true. I often come down on the side of usage rather than definitions. This does not mean that I consider every word can be used however we like (Humpty style), it simply means recognition that language is dynamic, words change meaning over time. My English teacher in the 1970's tried fighting against the use of the word 'gay' for homosexual. He was appalled that he was unable to describe himself as a gay man, because the usage had changed.

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist — Leontiskos

Thanks. Read it. I see the argument but I'm not sure it matters. I still believe there's something interesting and useful in the agnostic atheist category. I'll mull over it.

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino

That may be a good question. I'm new to Reddit.

Speaking of spurious sources of knowledge I asked ChatGPT for a view on agnostic atheist.

...someone who identifies as an "agnostic atheist" is expressing a lack of belief in gods (atheism) while also acknowledging the limits of human knowledge on the matter (agnosticism). This combination is quite common, as many people find that the labels capture different aspects of their stance on the question of gods.

I'll continue to consider this matter.

Want to check something with you. The average atheist is not philosopher and probably (like most people) not all that interested in this recondite subject. I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. When an atheist says, "I don't believe in gods, have no faith and hold gods to be mythological creatures" I don't see this as incompatible with agnosticism for reasons we have explored ad nauseum.

Here's the thing. Most atheists are practical atheists, they are not theorists and do not really care about the philosopher's arguments for or against gods. They simply don't see the need for gods or believe in them. The way they make sense of the world precludes gods. They are certainly atheists, but they don't aspire to any knowledge claim at all in this space. Many of them are not even aware of the arguments in defense of gods. They are simply 'without gods". Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?'