What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you?
— god must be atheist

You should have flagged it. — Srap Tasmaner

There would have been no response, was my summary estimation and I had a very tangible reason to expect that. I had just gone through a very similar episode with another member and please spare me from having to repeat the details. I appealed to two moderators; one was unsympathetic and dismissed the severity of the insults I received; the other was more sympathetic and advised the two of us to cut it out, which we both did.

So next time this sort of thing happens, can I appeal to you personally, instead of going into a visceral and bitter fight? and if you do advise to appeal to you, do you personally promise to intervene at such times that it's needed? I ask you this, because you advised me to flag it, so I understand that you'd find it actionable. So I do expect some action from you if I flag a post and you agree at the time that this would be in the realm actionable.

Please respond, I respectfully ask you to. I understand you are a moderator, with executive powers.

You have wrapped the argument that everyone who enjoys the benefits of living in a modern industrialized society shares some measure of blame for climate change in a claim that for them to say otherwise is hypocritical. That strikes me as kind of an odd way to frame the point. It suggests that you are more interested in whether people are being hypocritical than what they’re being hypocritical about. — Srap Tasmaner

You are very astute in noticing this, and you are absolutely right. That was my precise point. It is a two-pronged argument: one is that we are indeed each individually adding to the cumulative effect of global warming. This is what is the basis of the argument, and I believe this is true, otherwise I would not be arguing it. The second part of the argument is based on my judging of what is fair and what is not. It is fair to say that we are all contributing; it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing. This is a moral stand, not a mechanical-logical argument. The mechanical-logical argument was wrapped up in the first part. This second part seems odd to you as a frame, because I do believe it is perhaps original as a moral point of view and moral judgment. I believe this is not a false view, and that is why I advocate it. It is a valid view, and people just have not been considering it, because everyone else (other than me) has sheepishly bought into the argument that my debating opponent presents.

Was I harsh in calling people hypocritical? Please consider viewing my moral argument here in the odd but I believe valid moral point of view, and I am quite certain that then you will see that my accusation was not ungrounded in saying that people who exclude themselves and many others from the blame of causing global warming are, indeed, hypocritical.

The hypocrisy charge is so vacuous and irrelevant that it is a literal meme.



That we are complicit in capitalism - and of course we are - is yet another mark against it, yet another reason to see the back of it. Not some kind of childish gotchya moment.

can I appeal to you personally — god must be atheist

Sure.

Every time Being is analyzed, it takes a distinct form, a linguistic one - necessary language concepts for such examinations/studies being verb, predicate, verbal nouns, pseudo-objects, to name but a few. — TheMadFool

Heidegger agrees with you.

“… are we puzzled now only because we have allowed ourselves to be led astray by language or, more precisely, by the grammatical interpretation of language; staring at an It that is supposed to give, but that itself is precisely not there. When we say "It gives Being," “It gives time," we are speaking sentences.
Grammatically, a sen­tence consists of a subject and a predicate. The subject of a sentence is not necessarily a subject in the sense of an ego or a person. Grammar and logic, accordingly, construe it-sentences as imper­sonal, subject-less sentences.”(On Time and Being)

It helps if you know that the common way to say ”There is ...” in German is “Es gibt ...”, which is literally “It gives ...” It’s an impersonal construction like “It’s raining.”

Why does this happen? What's distinct/unique about Being that requires us to be, well, expert linguists with in-depth knowledge of, curiously, not semantics but syntax. :chin: The objective was to go into meaning (of Being) and instead we're neck-deep in grammar.

I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being.

I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being. — Srap Tasmaner

So, I missed the point then?

You do admit though that compared to other branches of philosophy, ontology requires extensive knowledge of grammar, right?

You do admit though — TheMadFool

Of course I don't. I explained an idiom, and its bearing on a quote, that's it.

Why does this happen? What's distinct/unique about Being that requires us to be, well, expert linguists with in-depth knowledge of, curiously, not semantics but syntax. :chin: The objective was to go into meaning (of Being) and instead we're neck-deep in grammar. — TheMadFool

It’s not just Being. Every significant change in philosophical outlook will be reflected in at least a subtle shift in the use of grammar. Why is this? Because grammar is more than just syntax. It expresses historically ingrained habits of thinking about object and subjects and their relationship. Subject-predicate structure disposes us toward construing is a certain way.

“If I say "the floor is hard," I employ a language system in which the subject-predicate relationship inheres in the subject itself. It is the floor which is hard, and that is its nature, regardless of who says so. The statement stands, not because the speaker said it, but because the floor happened to be what it is. The sentence's validity stems from the floor and not from the speaker.”(George Kelly)

↪TheMadFool I was just explaining what Josh posted, which would make no sense whatsoever if you didn’t know the German idiom Heidegger refers to. No, the point is not to study grammar to understand being. — Srap Tasmaner

But one needs to be aware that our handed-down grammar biases us toward a certain way of thinking about subjects and objects that Heidegger rightly points out is ‘impersonal’.

In ‘Logic as the Question Concerning The Essence of Language' Heidegger tells us he wants, 'in a confrontation with the tradition', to rethink logic, to "revolutionarily shake up the notion of logic" from the ground up, but that he can only provisionally point to his notion of the primordial ground of language as the basis of this new grounding of logic. Traditionally, language is thought as a tool of thinking, as secondary to thinking, as grounded on grammar, which in turn is grounded on logic. Heidegger says “the first thing we need is a real revolution in our relation to language.”

“Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar?”(Nietzsche, Will to Power)

Sure. — Srap Tasmaner

Thanks. I appreciate that.

:ok:

But one needs to be aware that our handed-down grammar biases us toward a certain way of thinking — Joshs

Well, there's a lot to say about language. I wasn't wading into those waters, and I'm still not, but don't let me stop you.

What is Being?

It's (as is obvious) a verb (being) cum noun (Being). Very much like Jogging, a verb (he is jogging) & a noun (he likes Jogging). :grin:

It's as if Being is tied up with the structure of and ideas in lingua itself. We can't talk about the former without going into the intricacies (those pertinent) of the other. — TheMadFool

If one stops looking for meaning and instead looks at what we do with language, then this does not seem surprising. The command "Block!" supposes that there are blocks to bring. Language is integrated into the world.

See my answer to your question int he Free Logic thread:

This is may well be the foundation of philosophy in the 20th Century, following the work fo Frege. His logic forms a simple language of predicates, allowing us to see the supposition of attributing predicates to individuals at the base of language.

But unfortunately this insight here fell into the fog of phenomenology, which tries to found existence on sensations rather than on language, and ends up confusing being with time and failing to clarify much of anything.

Frege’s logic forms a simple language of predicates, allowing us to see the supposition of attributing predicates to individuals at the base of language.

But unfortunately this insight here fell into the fog of phenomenology, which tries to found existence on sensations rather than on language, and ends up confusing being with time and failing to clarify much of anything. — Banno

What Frege lacked was insight into the basis of the subject-predicate structure. Husserl led the way here by founding predication not on sensation but on intentional synthesis. It took Heidegger, and later on Derrida, to arrive at a notion of the origin of both formal language and logic in signification.

Meh. Much the same thing was developed at the same time by Russel, Wittgenstein et al. but without the metaphysical nonsense.

But also that's not fair to Frege, since it is his analysis of sense and denotation, and hence of intensional logic, that was pivotal in both accounts: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/#Fre

The intention leads to the intension.

Much the same thing was developed at the same time by Russel, Wittgenstein et al. but without the metaphysical nonsense. — Banno

Russell and Frege leave us mired in a Kantian metaphysical thicket, which Wittgenstein realized and rejected in favor of his later phenomenological approach.

I think you’re typical of someone who can afford a car in the city, yes. There’s also many people around Boston who feel the same way— but you have to account for the fact that the T here is CRAP. They’re 50 years being. If you had efficient, high-speed rail — like they do in Japan — there wouldn’t be this issue. In parts of Canada, they have it designed so that buses run constantly and within a mile or so radius of homes.

Advertising plays a big role in all this too. Just like smoking. When it was decided, by tobacco executives, that they were losing money by not targeting women, there was a massive campaign to get women to smoke. And it worked. Car commercials and product placement in the US has created a culture around cars that is unprecedented, starting in the 50s especially.

So yes, of course the consumer shares some of the blame. That’s not the point. In the same sense we share blame for our government’s actions — because we elected decision-makers. But the blame is relative. To attempt to equalize it all, or to shift emphasis to “individual responsibility,” deliberately leaves out an important context in which powers far greater than an average consumer are at play — openly.

it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing. — god must be atheist

Not once did I say that. Next time, at least do me the courtesy of assuming I’m not a complete idiot. Of course we all contribute to global warming. I figured this was so obvious as to not need to explicitly point it out.

But switch the example. Take the opioid crisis here in the states. People addicted to opioids share responsibility too, yes? Does that level of blame equal the blame of doctors and pharmaceutical companies who deliberately over-prescribed and downplayed the addictiveness?

I don’t see how anyone could argue that. I’ll give you the benefit of assuming you don’t think that either. So why make the same mistake with climate change? Are you not aware that this argument is a very common one among climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry? Are you aware it’s exactly the defense big tobacco offered for decades with regard to the health effects of smoking?

I think an important point being overlooked is that we’re always acting in the world with an understanding of being— just not a theoretical understanding. Almost like a folk science. That’s not science, but it’s what humans act on the basis of.

So much of our meanings are culturally dependent. The same is true for being. Being is nearly always interpreted (in the west) in terms of the “world,” whether as material object or as “nature.” It’s hard to imagine an alternative.

It’s also worth remembering why this matters: because we define ourselves in these terms as well. And why is that so important?

Because those serve as the basis for morality, for social organization, for politics, for global decisions. The world is currently operating on the belief that earth is a resource, that the ultimate aim of humans is material wealth accumulation, and that humans are essentially animals with language with needs to satisfy.

That’s the current story. And it’s based in beliefs and interpretations about being, held tacitly and handed down over many centuries — and it’s driving us right into disaster.

So a follow-up question: what do we do about it?

So a follow-up question: what do we do about it? — Xtrix

A week later and no thoughts? Perhaps it wasn’t read, or the premises weren’t agreed with, but here are some solutions, in my view:

Education

Not necessarily in the school or academic sense, but in the sense of talking with one another, sharing ideas, identifying problems, comparing strategies, etc. In order for this to happen, however, three further things are necessary:

1) Social issues. We have to somehow put away our tribalism, dehumanization, and general isolation. That means eschewing social media, learning to interact more face to face, overcoming social anxiety and our comfort zones, avoiding media that polarizes us, learning to control our emotions, etc.

2) Break the taboos around discussing certain topics. For example, religion and politics, but also MONEY and class. Beyond merely complaining (“I hate my job,” “I don’t get paid enough,” etc), I don’t see much transparency on the latter issue. It’s considered rude to ask someone how much they make an hour or a year, etc.

3) Learning to ask questions. About one’s individual life, yes — but also how that life is interconnected with everyone and everything. (Not in a New Age bullshit way, but in a very obvious and practical sense — one that can be forgotten.) I think certain beliefs, values, and actions that normally go unquestioned can become talkable, from the current state of our political and economic world to our understanding of what a human being is.

The question of the meaning of being — and of nothing — will possibly play a role in all this, as I think it should.

Action

Educating ourselves and others — through questioning, through breaking the spell of complacency, conversational taboo, individualism, and tribalism — can only go so far and will mean nothing without concrete action. Eventually we all have to put our money (and bodies) where are mouths are.

How?

Through creating and joining groups. Through organization and collective action. Through unionizing our workplaces, building alliances and coalitions.

Of course, these things aren’t completely separate— as if we start with one and then move on to the other in a linear fashion: education, then organization, then action. Much of the time action comes first and people come together to rally around that action — sometimes many people share similar beliefs but don’t realize how many others do as well (I think the Occupy and Bernie Sanders movement showed that).

Still, this is a start.

So while I enjoy discussing being, and Heidegger, and Plato, etc., in the end I don’t see this question as one only for an obscure philosophy forum, or one relegated to the hallowed halls of academia.

Rather, it’s a very practical and relevant question: who or what are we, and what are we doing in the world?

Being and doing, and human nature, have always been inter-related. There may not be an ultimate answer, or an ultimate truth, but we’re living at least one answer.

:up: Taking life seriously...good ideas!