He has done it before. I don't understand your observation as a counter to mine.

The Bernie move needs to be seen in the context of the GOP being afraid to talk to the electorate that put them in office. The actions being taken by the present administration are so detrimental to the well-being of citizens that people want to talk about it. It does not mean that these people will suddenly want a form of polity that Sanders has championed during his career.

Other politicians are thinking of holding similar events. I hope they don't get too promotional.

I have read two of those and a portion of another.

The point I was making regards standards of citation. If, for instance, you want to cite from The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Miller, you could say that, and people would be able to find pages on that basis. If it is a less known book, one can find either a vendor or free text version to point to.

For example, here is the above-mentioned book at a vendor.

I see Science of Logic on your pile. That is quite a different book from Logic, Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences I have owned the latter book for decades and have had only brief glimpses of the other.

/rant on the value of good citations.

I am not arguing for his system. I left that long ago.

But I can argue what is an accurate account of it.

Kant kind of just rests on morality and says "let's 1) be moral, 2) do science to figure out the assumed (critique of judgment) to be designed world. — Gregory

I sense that you do get the scope of conscience in the Protestant rejection of authority outside the voice of reason or faith. Kant advocates for a specific code of conduct as difficult as many others that have been proposed.

But we were talking about Kant versus Hegel and their differences. Is that not worthy of clarification?

Hegel tries to create thought spaces where we can satisfy our desires for complete systamization — Gregory

My general impression of Hegel, as a psychologist (him, not me), is that all this stuff we think about is directly related to our experiences while being people.

That is not to deny a desire for complete understating but Hegel's approach in Lordship and Bondage is a sharp departure from Kant preaching universal peace.

You are asking two questions there. And you are assuming that they are necessarily just one.

So, I could pursue each one of them. But how is it my job to separate what you claim as a thesis to be what stands together? Why should I think that is true?

I, too, am only a learner.

In asking for clear references, I am not questioning your experience of a text but asking for a means to accurately share it. Otherwise, our swift ostensive gestures leave us talking to ourselves.

Which Hegelian text are you referring to? There are at least three your description could be pointing to.

How about quoting some text so that the context can be appreciated?

I support your effort to become persnickity in the use of terms.

Kant is pretty darn specific in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic regarding what he supports and objects to in Hume.

My observation applies more to comparisons made afterwards.

I'd compare "Faculty" to "Category" in Kant, though -- not so much that reason itself is a faculty but faculties (categories) are a part of Reason. — Moliere

I read Kant's insistence upon the intuitions as not a claim upon the limits of knowledge but acceptance of a structure we always use. The objection to Hume is about the range of options being entertained, a luxury not available to all.

Perhaps so.

I will leave you be.

Unlike Plato?

Edit to add: Here we are, repeating the discussion of four years ago.

That leaves out the "if at all" which consumed much of that discussion.

What was his (Plato's) view on it? — Corvus

A close reading of the Phaedo is a start. There is a discussion put forward by Fooloso4 that frames the different reactions to the text made here and elsewhere. All the opinions expressed 4 years ago are regularly repeated here since then.

I do not want to revive any of that in this discussion because that would hijack this OP.

Bernie is showing how it is done with the withdrawal of the GOP from its people.

Are you saying there is no means to compare actions by nations because they all get wrapped in political messaging?

I have objected to crappy things the U.S. has done as well as many other nations. If there is no other measure than messaging and agenda, there does not seem to be a point to judgement at all.

After considering the essay as a whole, the argument assumes all consent is manufactured and that there are only two producers of that sort of thing in the market.

That argument does not touch the common "enlightenment" value of seeking a less cruel environment. The invitation to abnegate the commons for the sake of preventing cruelty is being measured by what the thesis proposes does not exist.

It is a brilliant bit of sophistry.

A "no" from what?

The claims made by the Administration?

No, it isn't. Are you American? — frank

It is rare to have a position argued so forcibly.

I see the claims but not the documents supporting them. You know, the sort that Congress would demand.

All of his cuts are available for anyone to see yet no one can choose one that was a bad idea to remove. — NOS4A2

Where is all this information sharing happening?

Plato addressed that better than I can.

Or you misunderstood the context of expressing my limited understanding of our experience.

I was not questioning why you claimed what you did. Claiming what minds are is another matter. Literally.

I am not claiming what returns or not in the frame of some future {maybe} possible world. My life dissolves before my eyes.

On the other hand, your last statement is a declaration of fact that is beyond yours or my experience.

That's not what this AP article indicates. It's a voluntary buy-out that's been offered, although $25,000 is chump change for a buy-out. But if someone was going to change jobs anyway, it might be tempting. — frank

And if someone was planning to work in this field of research for their entire career, hearing:

landing in their inboxes days before agency heads are due to offer plans for shrinking their workforces. — AP

is tantamount to saying:

"Take this chump change or leave with nothing."

You can't read the same book twice if it has been erased before the second reading. — Nils Loc

That is the kind of oblivion that I fear.

It applies to memory of information and events but most keenly to my life as homo faber. I have learned a number of trades and there is always a period of disconnection when I have been away too long.

When the art returns, it is like coming back to a forgotten life. The ability frees me from numb ineffectual gestures made in dreams against imagined opponents.

But Boris, what about Moose and Squirrel?

Can't wait to read the review. There is mounting skepticism, however, emerging from such claims being made:

The Trump administration has given almost no details on which aid and development efforts abroad it spared as it mass-emailed contract terminations to aid groups and other USAID partners by the thousands within days earlier this month. The rapid pace, and the steps skipped in ending contracts, left USAID supporters challenging whether any actual program-by-program reviews had taken place. — AP

Rubio's statement about 'consulting with Congress' is odd:

“In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping ... to be administered more effectively under the State Department,” he said. Democratic lawmakers and others call the shutdown of congressionally-funded programs illegal, saying such a move requires Congress’ approval. — ibid.

The way such consultation worked previously is that the Inspector General reported to Congressional committees. Here is last year's report on: Fraud and Abuse in USAID.

Rubio's statement sounds like a reversal of who is advising who.

Donald Trump doesn't want to control any markets, in fact he just gutted regulations that were put in place after 2009. — frank

The trade wars Trump is kicking off are an attempt at controlling markets. They are a sharp departure from the "Neo-liberalism" that touted the benefits of unfettered capitalism.

The need for regulation is not only to protect the public from financial and environmental harm. The rules place the competing companies on a level playing field where some do not gain advantage by doing bad things. A lawless future combined with massive tax cuts will make the crony capitalism of the 19nth century look quaint.

Okay. I will try to stay with it.

how swifty the conversation moves on to something easier to circumscribe.

I prefer the original topic about impending death.

I'm not sure if you're being serious. — Wayfarer

The precursor to the 'materialistic' age was people saying they knew what your deal would be after you died.

Luther said no human could be involved with deciding that outcome. That question regarding human authority led to others.

So, pretty serious about the afterlife question.

In Western culture there is no such belief, instead it is thought that living beings are aggregates of material elements which are born as a consequence of physical processes which cease when those comprising physical elements disperse at death. It is a view seems intuitively obvious when viewed ‘from the outside’ or from a third-person or scientific perspective. However from the ‘eastern’ viewpoint it is a nihilistic attitude. — Wayfarer

What about those centuries when you could change your prospects in the afterlife by getting with the winning team?

There is a large distance to travel from visiting Hades to get playbacks from souls by pouring blood into their cups and the descent and ascent of a particular soul as described by Plotinus. The arguments of authority from the latter have had much to do with the secular as such.

The outcomes of the effort to dismantle civil service are now changing the lives of my friends and family. From the dissolution of pensions to suddenly having careers arbitrarily negated, some of the hardest working people I know are being kicked to the curb.

The delight taken in their trouble will be remembered.

Looking at the table of contents, It does not seem to challenge Heidegger's claim that Nietzsche produced the last metaphysic.

A bit of text toward clarification upon that topic would be appreciated.

Edit to Add: Pardon my question. It is too off-topic.

Thinking about the gaps in my life

I will look for it.

John Sallis refers to that text in his Verge of Philosophy, saying:

My discussions with Jacques Derrida about the khora go back to 1982-83. At that time he gave me a copy of the typescript of his text Khora, which appeared in print only in 1987. This generous gift was not entirely unsolicited, as our mutual interest in the Timaeus had, more than once, come up in conversations that year in Paris.

Many years later, referring to our dialogue, he wrote that the Timaeus is "a text which we both feel possesses an implosive power which it keeps in reserve." It is not of course a matter only of the single word. Derrida insists on contextualization; he stresses that the development of a concept, indeed its very delimitation, requires, not mere designation, but inscription within an extended discourse, within a text.

Nonetheless, there can be little question but that, within the text of the Timaeus, preeminently within the second of Timaeus' three discourses, the word Khora bears the weight of what is there thought, of what is thought in a thinking so exorbitant that what is there thought can no longer even be called-except very improperly-a concept. This word, if it be a word in this context, is the fuse that would have set off-and that now again could be made to set off-the implosion of the dyadic structure of intelligible and sensible that otherwise Platonism would be taken to have bequeathed to the entire history of metaphysics. This no doubt is the implosive power Derrida had in mind. — John Sallis, The Verge of Philosophy, Chapter 3