I don't disagree with this, but the phenomenon synthesis is describing is not relevant to many people living at home right now. They're home, not because they have any problem being independent, but because their lives have fallen apart because of the pandemic. As I've said, that's what families are for. — T Clark

Sure and I understand that. There is something inherently problematic about the situation though. It means the familial structure is getting more important as a necessary safeguard, which will also keep people from straying from the family too much, lest they become estranged. So even before they will venture out, they know that they should 'behave'. To that extent I agree with synthesis. It fosters dependence, which was actually exactly the agenda of the rather conservative governments that have ruled the US and Europe since the 1980s. The ideals of discovery prevalent in the seventies have given away to traditionalism. That is not your fault T Clark, I am not targeting you, you indeed do what a loving father does and your children are the better for it, but a social trend that I am discerning.

It's an odd time to be asking this question. My son, who is very independent, is living at home now because he lost his job and career to the pandemic. He's gone back to school. A lot of other people are in the same situation now. The fact that they have families who can help out is a great thing. That's what families are for. — T Clark

It is a problem if one is not lucky enough to have families. It is an indication that opportunities to begin a life of your own are dwindling, that means those in a loving family might be the least of our worries. People without families lose their jobs to the pandemic too.

Contra synthesis I would say that a welfare state is necessary to reduce independence on the family. I also do not see the reference to 'a great american tragedy', isn't the loss of freedom a tragedy everywhere? Aristotle already knew you need some financial independence in order to be free.

Hello all, I play at chess.com too, but not as Tobias. Hanover, are you Hanover on chess.com ? anyone who likes a game, drop your handle and I contact you.

A 'realist criterion' for truth, if I may say so, discerns what is (proximately) true by matching a truth-claim to a truth-maker (i.e. fact of the matter and/or valid inference) – like turning a key in a lock – and thereby mismatches indicate non-truths. I suggest that adaptivity (for FLOURISHING, not mere 'survival') is a heuristic criterion for deciding on 'criteria of truth'. — 180 Proof

I agree with ou, however I do not know if we 'decide' in a Kantian autonomy kind of way on the criteria of truth. We do that from a bedrock of cultural assumptions. Just as 'fliurishing' is based on cultural assumptions. I belong to a group of researchers investigating 'the anthropocene' for instance and that very word contains different connotations about flourishing than the biblical (go forth and multiply) or the positivistic (bring nature into culture) ideals of flourishing.

If "there are no criteria by which to judge criteria of truth", then we cannot decide whether or not it is true that "there are no criteria [ ... ]", no? This sort of arbitrariness (e.g. relativism, nihilism, anti-realism) isn't adaptive outside of very narrow, parochial, niches (e.g. academia). — 180 Proof

We cannot 'decide' whether there are criteria of truth or not in any definite once and for all way, no. That does not mean every criterion is arbitrary. We see, like your lock and key analogy, which work better than others and so provisionally we choose one over the other. The only thing that salvages us and perhaps the only criterion I would accept is that of the better argument. When you cease to abide by that rule you cease to pplay the game if 'triuth' altogether. However what constitutes a better argument is indeed dependent on the criteria of truth so the game is deeply circular. I do think it is meaningful because through it we get to know ourselves. Whether that is knowledge of the truth remains an open question, but those to me in the end coincide (in dogmatic idealist fashion :D ) .

I'm asking what are your criteria for truth in these respective two domains (or one domain if your view falls into one of the second or third choices). It sounds like you use / advocate the use of science for descriptive questions. Do you approach prescriptive questions as a subset of that? Or in a similar but separate way? Or in a completely different way altogether? — Pfhorrest

On a non-philosophical (non reflective) level I have scientific answers inform but not determine my ethical and legal positions. So in everyday life it would be option one of our depending on how strict you look at it. I do think legal questions are not reducible to scientific ones and that scientific questions are not legal or ethical matters in another guise so that would mean option one if I understand correctly. Banno's straighforward and excellent explanation comes to mind.

My question here is basically about what you take those presuppositions to be. Are they radically different for the two sides, exactly the same for both (and if so what way are they like), or “separate but equal”. — Pfhorrest

That depends on the situation they are asked from and the historical epoch we are in. These presuppositions lay the ground work of our judgment so it depends on them whether they are close. In the middle ages they solved empirical questions in the same vein as they would solve legal matters, that is look at texts and compare the answers of various learned men on the matter. They identified axioms (such as the non-existence of a vacuum for instance). Today we do that differently, we still apply the same kind of method to legal questions but we do not apply them to scientific questions anymore.
This divergence has a history and if you consider the works of the earliest scientists you find lots of influences from these earlier models. See for instance this article
(It is popular, I could find something academic but that takes more time and time is scarce, but it gives the idea)

I am not a realist like you, I am an idealist, meaning that what is considered true ultimately depends on our criteria for truth. There are no criteria by which to judge those criteria, since that would lead to an infinite regress. There are of course reasons why we prefer one set of criteria over another. The scientific method works wonders in order to provide answers to scientific questions that work and conform to our experience.

I would agree with your view Pfhorrest, but not by proposing the scientific method for normative questions. I think a philosophical method can be applied to both without compromising the is / ought distinction. Both normative considerations (why punish murderers for instance) and scientific considerations (The universe is 13.8 billion years old, (I googled it so it is true...) ) contain presuppositions. It is philosophy's job in my opinion to uncover these presuppositions, including actually the is / ought distinction itself. the distinction is itself philosophical, though not of course irrelevant. Therefore I do also agree with metaphysician Undercover above.

I think, but I might be wrong here, it is in his last chapter of beyond good and evil. I see it as a discipline, a way to look at the world. Acceptance, so amor fati, not getting bogged down by what the people around you tell you to think or belief, but to proclaim your own values affirm that which gives you life, without letting yourself be molded as a useful cog for the group. But hey that is my understanding and it comes from reading it a long while ago. All these sentiments are antithetical to fascism. (Fasces meaning bundle, usually bundles of wood or arrows, so it celebrates the being part of a group. an unassuming twig but strong within a bundle)

I think there is enough in Nietzsche's writings that suggest he would view fascism as an example of resentment, herd morality and what have you. In Beyond good and evil he writes about the silliness of anti-semitism for instance. No anti-semitism is not necessarily fascist, but the psychological attraction of fascism is that you can feel proud of the group you belong to without having any heroic trade of your own. That translates into casting some groups as superior and others as inferior. It is something not needed by the truly noble, but only by those who fear they really do not have anything to contribute on their own.

Is there any of your business here? I don't think so. — counterpunch

Khaled call you out for being uncivil. I think that is allowed no, on a forum such as this?

You're not very bright, are you? — counterpunch

On the contrary. I am rather bright,

You failed to understand my basic idea of a disparity between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality. When I explained it again, you burst into floods of tears. — counterpunch

Not at all, not willing to engage with you does not mean I am crying in a corner.

I think your basic idea is mistaken, that is one. Two, even if your basic idea would be correct it still does not do what you want it to do, namely provide a normative ground for action.

Do you think philosophy is easy? Do you imagine that you'll never have to go back and re-examine something?

No I think it is rather hard... point?

Get over it, you fucking pussy! — counterpunch

Ohh dear... you naughty moose!

well in order not to derail Trach's thread and to engage with the question at hand the difference between philosophy and science is interesting.

I say, only if you're an ideologue. If you accept that science is a valid description of reality, there's no scientifically valid reason to create nuclear weapons. Get it? — counterpunch

There is not scientifically valid reason to build and atomic bomb I agree with you. Then again there is no scientifically valid reason not to either. I said they are both products of science. through science we acquire knowledge of the world and we can use that knowledge for a variety of different reasons. One is to wipe out enemies. Science has nothing to say about it except perhaps warning me about the consequences of my actions, but that's it.

I'm going to contrast and compare an ideological understanding of reality with a scientific understanding of reality.

Broadly, religion describes reality as heaven above, hell below - the earth inbetween, God in heaven, Satan in hell, and man inbetween. God is good, Satan is bad, and man is inbetween. Politics describes a world made up of nation state shaped jigsaw puzzle pieces. God is traditionally, the authority for political power in a given territory, and different territories have different ideas of God. There's also money, but let's put that aside. That is an ideological understanding of reality.

In contrast, science describes a single planetary environment, and the evolution of humankind - who emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and dispersed in every direction. Human beings began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, in tribal groups between 40-120 strong, then hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations, began farming, and adopted a settled way of life. Science describes a solar system, with the sun at the centre, and planets in orbit around it - as one solar system of 200 million in our galaxy, and our galaxy as one of trillions in an infinite universe. That's a scientific understanding of reality. — counterpunch

What does this have to do with anything? I think, but I am guessing here because you do not give a proper argument, that you mean to say the scientific description of the world is real and the ideological description is not. Well, that is clearly false. If you go to another country you will have a hard time convincing the border guards that well the frontier is an ideological construct and therefore not real. you will face a very real front end of the stick. And the scientific understanding of reality? Sure accepted, but what do you want to tell me with it? It is a set of facts no more and they have no normative import.

Anyway, I would love to hear what kind of question you are answering by presenting me your different worldviews. Now I do not think science is unideological, but I cannot even begin to address that unless I know why you give me these supposedly different world views. Come to think of it, they are not different, they peacefully coexist, apart perhaps from the God claim in the secularisation...

I'm sorry, no. I don't know of anyone else who attributes the climate and ecological crisis to a misapplication of technology, in turn attributed to a mistaken relationship to science that dates back to the trial of Galileo — counterpunch

Only the whole environmentalist movement since the beginning the 20th century....

That distinction between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality is almost impossible to put across to people, and as far as I'm aware — counterpunch

Can it be because you do not explain it very well?

as far as I'm aware - I'm the only person on earth who thinks it even remotely significant. It's like it exists in a blind-spot. — counterpunch

If you are the only one that can mean a couple of things. One, you do not explain your arguments very well or they do not hold water in the face of an academic forum, or they are a convoluted mess of misunderstandings. Put more succinctly, you are a crack pot.

Or two, you are the next Martin Heidegger and your genius has gone sadly unnoticed. Both might be, but there a lot of crackpots and little Martin Heidegger's.

What does one have to do with the other? No I am not willing to engage with a condescending person, someone who I also begin to suspect, has little actual knowledge about philosophy. Though even if you had I would still object. Yes, I am willing to work to work at philosophical understanding. The fact that I do not like to engage with you because of your condescending attitude does in no way imply I do not like to engage in philosophical understanding. The two are not related. your argumentative skills are below par.

No, you should get into proper dialogue with someone without being condescending. an argument does not become any better by addressing your interlocutor in a patronizing way.

Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay? — counterpunch

I stopped reading here. Condescension pisses me off.

Another inconsitency in my thinking, I realize your objection now too... thank you for the concrete literature recommendation. Since Hegel is notoriously hard to understand and 200 years old, are you familar with a more current thinker that has synthetized this approach further and in a more "understandable" way - or is Mr. Hegel still the way to go — Trachtender

Well, I might not be totally up to date with current developments... I do think Hegel is the way to go, because after him the whole idea of a kind of theory of theories has died down. He was the last to formulate such an all encompassing system. that whole approach was dismissed by his critics and the philosophy of finitude of 'difference' came in vogue. I would not start with Hegel though, but something about Hegel to see if it is a direction you like to explore further. Peter Singer has written a very small and accessible book on Hegel. There will be issues to quibble with in that book, but is small and easy to read witch is valuable too.

Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty. — counterpunch

Yeah sure, so? A rather momentous achievement in philosophy. That he happened not to publish another treatise is no reason to dismiss this one.

No. Science has been rendered a whore to military and industrial power justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools. — counterpunch

Science is used by people for certain ends. Rather you seem to believe in some kind of exalted science for science sake, a kind of master discourse of science which determines its own ends... Scientific understanding does not suggest anything though, your subjective interpretation of the facts uncovered by science does. a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. Are we destroying the environment? Yeah sure, but we also look at science to save it. However, our comportment toward the abstract reality that is 'the environment' is ethical. No science will tell you whether 'the enviromnment' is worse saving or how to balance the interests of future generations with those of the current one. These are ethical questions, maybe legal questions but not scientific questions. Especially an epistemologist should know what questions belong to what realm. My feeling is that you simply accept some assertions as true unquestioningly when you usher in normative ideals in your scientific instruction manual.

I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn. — counterpunch

It might answered by scientists, but then they are doing philosophy. Moreover they cannot know it by using the scientific method. We cannot experiemntally test the limits of knowledge. What they can say is: using the scientific method we can know X and we may not be able to know Y. However the question 'what can we know' is broader than what can we know scientifically. Scientifically for instance we might not know how to punish rape, however a lawyer or legal theoretician might provide you with an answer. A provisional one, surely, but so are all scientific answers provisional until refuted. I think you are reasoning in a circular way. whatever can be known can be known scientifically and science determines what can be known...

Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards! — counterpunch

A prioritsiation of truth... I would not know how that would work. Well, it has not established a rigorous methodology at least not as rigorous as the natural and social sciences. Whether that means no methodology I would doubt. There is in any case the methodological criterion that the best argument wins. There are certain methodological devices such as the thought experiment, the deduction and the reductio ad absurdum. Moreover it is easy to recognise good from bad philosophy through following the thread of the argument. I again think you want philosophy to do something that it cannot do, provide you with answers. Philosophy provides you with a sense of what questions are meaningful and which are not. Other than science which deals with the objective and knowleble, philosophy deals with the subjective and knowledge as such.

That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science. — counterpunch

You misunderstand the nature of the methodological device employed by Descartes, namely the thought experiment. It does not matter whether the malicious demon is a plausible scenario, but our resolving that scenario tells us something about assumptions we (according to Descartes) have to accept, namely the fact that I think. Since the I think is not vulnerable to the demon hypothesis and the physical world (res extensa) is, thought rests on a firmer basis. There might be all kinds of things wrong with the argument, but that does not mean his method is bogus. Your invocation of Occam by the way is also not scientific, tried tested and proven in experiment, it is a heuristic device. Moreover it does not save you because we indeed perceive an objective reality, but we also notice that everyone perceives it differently. That it exists independently of us is also not scientifically provable, but an assumption.

Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation. — counterpunch

Yes Galileo Galilei has been bullied, but is that because of the prominence of the subjective in church writings? Weren't they simply bickering about an accurate objective description? Galilei did not care for metaphysics, and why should he? I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, also during Descartes turn to the subjectve as an important pole? Newton had to hide his alchemistic writings which actually still are not considered when he is being discussed as a scientist, because that does not fit his place in the canon of great scientists.

You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. Philosophy questions assumptions and science accepts some to make sense of the world in a way that gets things done. Galilei, Newton, but also Descartes showed Aristotelianism to be wrong, but that does not mean they were devoid of metaphysical assumptions. Both are very valuable, but do different things. I can very well be a postmodern thinker and a rocket scientist at the same time. The OP asks a metaohysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real...

Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own.

Mr. Lyotards and other post-modern thinkers seem to talk about this issue, if I understood it correctly. The result seems to be that there lots of different narratives that are all “true”. So I search for this super theory that explains how everything is a theory and has some truth elements in it although the theories may be contradicting each other. — Trachtender

What you ask for here is incoherent due to your insistence "it has some truth elements it". Now that can only be ascertained using this "master theory" that you would like to have. However, if we had that we would not have all these other theories anymore. We do not have a foundation for what is ultimately real. Even our dichotomy 'real / unreal' is itself an operation of thought. That is not to say of course that there is no progress in philosophy, we learned how to ask more probing questions. If you would like something really meta and explaining how everything is a theory and has its place in the history of philosophy, I suggest reading Hegels Phenomenology of spirit and Logik, however be advice that Kierkegaard thrashed it and so do all the analytic phillosophers. So het no idea if that is true or not ;)

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy.

I am wondering. Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? I know they say if you're the smartest person in the room you're in the wrong room. But do intelligent women always need a guy that challenges them mentally? I find intelligence and an open mind attractive, but it doesn't feel like I qualify for those women. It often feels that I am stuck amongst women that question very little in the world and don't try to figure things out. — TiredThinker

I apologize for psychologizing the OP here, but what you are actually seem to be asking is, hey, I like intelligent women, but somehow, they do not seem to like me, is it because I am not smart enough for them? Well, I do not think that is the case. From my experience women do not generally like intelligent guys. I assume guys also not necessarily like intelligent women. It can actually be quite off putting if someone asks difficult questions all the time. Often intelligent guys tend to make a problem out of everything instead of going with the flow. Also they might not all behave very manly, because they are used to thinking before acting. (Now there are exceptions, some guys have it all, they are just lucky). I do not think your intelligence is the problem. Maybe you are intelligent and women who do not question everything might find your antics endearing.

I also think you are a but much in awe of intelligent women, wondering if you qualify. Well, no one really likes another person who is in awe of them, because it is quite an objectifying gaze. You reduce a woman to her intelligence and no one wants to be reduced to anything. Admiration is of course fine, but putting yourself down is not.

Contrary to "unenlightened;497655" I do think there are intelligent women who also like intelligent guys. I do not know if there are many but it certainly is possible. Maybe they are referred to 180's sapiosexuals. Yes there is a niche for everything even for us nerds.

There are two levels intermingling in your post and these two levels need to be untangled, one is the ideal, namely the conceptual and the relation between concepts to each other and the second is the real, material things interacting. the problem is persistent in philosophy, namely how does the conceptual relate to the real. However both levels are interesting. To start with the real:

If the quantum realm is truly random in most ways, this wouldn't mean our free choices are random if they come from this place. I think it is easier to understand free will materializing from something random rather than from something determined. — Gregory

How is randomness a better ground for free will than determination. If everything material fundamentally acts random than our material minds will also act random and your will is not free, it is just an intrinsically random reaction over which you have no control. Our mind is simply like a commentator on a football game (good luck at the super bowl) it rationalises our decisions which are dominated by stimuli and it reacts to it. It either reacts predictable (determinism) or it acts random (your quantum level) but both routes leave no place for freedom, at bestfor rationalisation after the fact. And maybe that rationalisation is also determined, or fundamentally random, but still no freedom there.

You like to find a real ground for the freedom of the will, but I think both your routes do not end where you want to go and for that you need another hypothesis. That is your emergent hypothesis, that somehow free will is created by the combination of material parts. It may be but that qualitative jump is still not understoond. Your randomness or determination idea does not save it.

Now the other level is the conceptual, here you start dealing with abstract concepts. they also do not explain free will, but they might explain the way we think. and I think here you are quite right. the dynamic though and life is already discovered in philosophy. This game you play with being and nothingness has been played by GWF Hegel in the first chapter of his Logik. Now his solution was indeed the primacy of becoming as the negation of being and becoming.

I think you are right about paradoxes, but I would indeed recommend you to read Hegel, you might well enjoy it.
I also think paradox is indeed the root of the free will problem and its solution, but well maybe we will get there still.

best
Tobias

It may be also the decadent romance of encountering the shadowy figure of the gothic depths, like a fictional vampire romance story. Perhaps some would say that this is not romantic, but there can be dark romance and this applies to philosophy because it can be about encountering the depths and the heights. — Jack Cummins

Of course and I would not call it decadent, I would also not call a gothic romantic story philosophy, but they do point to something inherently troubling in the idea of the particular becoming the cosmic. The flip side is that you know someone else, some insignificant and fickle just like yourself, holds the key to your world. The fear it causes is existential, hence all the theme of mirror and castles in gothic novels. The other, a mirror image of yourself and yet truly unknown manages to capture you, literally.

I would suggest that, to the romantic, the object of their affection is perhaps equally important to them, or more valuable, than the cosmic. — Book273

Indeed. those metaphors all suggest something, namely something insignificant (a pair of eyes)suddenly become something massive and deep. That is I think what happens in romance, or love. The cosmic becomes tangible in the romantic. Suddenly your day has a point because she is there, the world obtains a brighter color and more meaning because she is there. Those words are not believed, a metaphor is something else than a proposition with a truth value. Rather the metaphor is a poetic expression of a sense of meaning, suddenly the cosmic is there for a reason, namely the particular, that utter particular other.

Romantic philosophy in my view sees the overcoming of reason by feeling as a supreme form of the good, or being, being is not thinking, being is feeling. The above lines are in that sense a form of romantic philosophy in that the totality is reduced to the particular. It is not the ratio that seeks for unity that is paramount, but feeling that seeks alterity and needs another to be directed at.

I started Nietzsche with Beyond Good and Evil, my phil. prof recomended me to do so and who am I to object... so I would still say yes to your question.

I would also not recommend Russel. He is very much into the analytic tradition, which is not where existentialism comes from. I myself was taught from a rather down to earth book. The Penguin History of Western Philosophy by D.W. Hamlyn. A great intor is also to take a philosophy course. It is handy to have someone around to throw ideas at and recommend you the specific works you might be interested in. Schopenhauer is good too as it is rather easy to read and most of all fun, because he wrote well and he is interesting in his own right especially if ou enjoyed the mystics like Plato Meister Eckhart etc.

"We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible."

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump thinks Jim Jordan is actually getting in fist fights on the House floor? — NOS4A2

Well, he uses the words ' fight' in those instances figuratively perhaps. As I would argue he does. However he is not indicted for those. He is indicted for speech acts which might well have lead to the storming of the Capitol and him tellingly refraining from condemning the action. It is rather pointless to debate what times Trump used ' fight' figuratively sometimes, the question is could a reasonable person predict that his words spoken there and than lead to violence and than my answer would be yes. Did he mind the violence? Well there are indications he did not otherwise he would have spoken out immediately against it instead of watching television, right? Did Trump's incitement to walk to Washington helped creating an insurrection? Yes. Is that unbecoming of a president? Yes. Does it amount to high crimes and misdemeanors? Yes. Is an impeachment therefore constitution? Yes.

"immanent lawless action". Congress uses the similar phrase "lawless action" in the articles (minus the word "immanent") hinting that they are in fact alluding to the Supreme court standard "immanent lawless action". I'm not sure why they leave out a very important part of Supreme court precedent, but my guess is that it is a specious attempt to tie much earlier speech to later violence—"before this therefor because of this" nonsense. — NOS4A2

In law the devil is in the details. What doe imminent mean? Immediately? Well, not very likely. It would narrow the definition of crime to the point of redundancy. Incitement takes some time to foment the necessary will in those incited. I might incite to violently and openly to overthrow the government and the coup d'etat happens a couple of days later after., because it needed some time to prepare Was that imminent? depends on your interpretation of the word. This is called the open texture of law. There is some necessary interpretation going on in every legal definition.
So maybe they want to avoid the bickering about the word ' imminent' . You might find it problematic, I do not. Again, impeachment is not a criminal trial, so they do not need to stick to definitions of the criminal law. What they need to prove is that the president acted in ways contrary to how a president should behave. Undermining democracy does not seem to fall out of that category. I believe Nixon was inter alia impeached for contempt of congress. That is not a criminal offence and actually inherently vague.

What I will repeat is that their version of “incitement” is no standard and is contrary to the constitution, which they have sworn a duty to support and defend. — NOS4A2

I wish you ha bothered because it is fairly easy and I can show you by way of an example:
"Hey boss, what we supposed to do with that broad that keeps steelin our stash and keeps snitchin' on us to them cops"? You know what to do Antonio, make sure she sleeps".
What do you think 'to sleep' means here?

I’m not going to bother asking for the specifics on how one is able to compel another adult to criminal action by speaking of peaceful action. — NOS4A2

I love it when people keep repeating assertions without an argument. Firstly there is no "standard" for incitement as if there is a specific subset of words with which one might incite and others with which one might not. Something like incitement, just like insult or defamation is by necessity context dependent. Of course were it a criminal trial the bar for words to reach the level of incitement is higher, due to the restraint with which criminal law must be employed, This is impeachment and not criminal law. Secondly I have explained to you how impeachment works. ' High crimes and misdemeanors' is an open category. We are not dealing with criminal law, we are dealing here with constitutional law. I do not not know if it is often employed in constitutional law, but in private law and even sometimes in criinal law the 'reasonable person standard" is used. To come back to my example above, "let her sleep" might come down to aiding and abetting murder (or to construe some sort of conspiracy if that is not feasible) because of the context. Any reasonable person would know what the words mean.

Now let's apply the reasonable person standard, tried and tested in US law, to this situation. "March on to the capitol to give the encouragement they need" might in itself not be enough. However his aides urged for trial by combat the same day and consider Wayfarer's examples:

Trump at the time of the riot was President of the United States. So his words obviously have the power to influence others. When he said 'go there and fight like hell' and 'we cannot take the country back through weakness', his many followers took that as a call to arms and acted accordingly. And he'll never live it down. — Wayfarer

Add to this he did not tell his followers to back off immediately. Could he have known his leads to the endangerment of government officials in session? He most certainly could. Therefore his impeachment is justified.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2

It would be if that is what he did. And even then, for an average citizen to call for protest is ok. For a president to do this and challenge an election certified by officials and the judiciary alike which he lost, is altogether different. I would argue actually that even there has not been a storming of the capitol his words merit impeachment.

In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. — NOS4A2

No it does not, it is always subject to time and place constraints. If I start yelling obscenities at Trump during his rally and he cannot continue because of my verbal abuse I am forcibly removed.

is contrary to the constitution — NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. Actually I get visions of this baboon just clapping his hands together and uttering constitution, constitution in a nigh unintelligible fashion. No matter how often you say it is against the constitution, that does not make it so.

Trump was charged with: — Wayfarer

Yeah... seems to me not out of the bounds of the reasonable. The actual charge is high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a legal catch all term as explained above. The incitement of insurrection is the species of it, but not the same thing as the criminal law definition of the crime. That would actually punished by a heft jail time I reckon.

It is impossible, I think Kant was very right here. we simply cannot have any experience without structuring it in time. So time is not an illusion. It is an a-priori condition for experience. Whether this experience resides in the subject or the object is as such a meaningless question, because it does not matter.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. So why would they keep claiming that he incited violence? Same thing with the trite phrase “undermining democracy”. These violations are made up whole cloth, inventions, fantasies, inapplicable to any set of rules or codes of conduct, legal or otherwise, and apparently only the president can be guilty of them. This is arbitrary persecution. — NOS4A2

Well one can incite violence irrespective of the criminal difference for a crime names 'inciting violence' is fulfilled. Het is not charged with the crime 'inciting violence' he is being charged with misconduct, namely the inciting of violence. For good reasons the criminal law restricts its ability to punish to certain very strictly described behaviours. That does not mean that behavior that falls outside of its scope is automatically ' right'. Especially a president must know that his words carry weight. If he says " March on the capitol to give our republican allies the encouragement they need", it is A. not likely he meant that literally, i.e. his followers singing a round of Kumbaya together and B. if he did mean it literally why then did he not urge his followers immediately to stop storming and start singing? Only the most naive among us, or those pretending to be naive would take the president's words literally.

He is not being prosecuted, he is being impeached. And indeed certain roles makes one more liable to prosecution, even in the criminal law sense. That is known as ' garantenstellung' in German. From someone trained with firerarms you may expect to shoot at the legsin self defense, whereas an ordinary citizen might indeed beexcused when shooting an assailant in the chest. There is nothing odd about it. Especially a president who has bred a following of devoted citziens a number of whom who are known to be violent, should choose his words more carefully than indeed Joe Blow.

So why wouldn’t Congress, those who swear an oath to defend and support the constitution, defend and support the rights of the president instead of violating them? — NOS4A2

But what makes you think the President has such a right? If the president incites a mob to 'march on the capital' and if his personal lawyer utters statements like 'trial by combat', the president is not doing a proper job, i.e., behaving as the president should and accepting the outcome of the democratic process. He should not, express or implied, either by himself or by those he employs, incite his supporters to violence. That is not what a godo president should do. Having a certain right does not reason not mean one is exempt from the consequences of exercising it, in this case, becoming impeached.

by attempting to criminalize, contra the first amendment, Trump’s speech. Had Trump said something racist or anti-American — NOS4A2

Here you go again. It is not even necessary to criminalize his speech. His speech need not be criminal just unqorthy of or unbefitting of the presidential office. I do not see why you would accept 'un-american' as a reason for impeachment and not first amendment protected but you do consider undermining democracy, by the president, to be so protected. I can only conclude you do not find undermining democracy un-american.

but he said nothing that violates the bounds of polite discourse, let alone something that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. — NOS4A2

And why do you think this simple unqualified opinion of yours is correct? Many do find it impeachment worthy and have actually moved towards impeachment. They have seen something different than you did. Now why would we accept your take on 'polite discourse' and not theirs?

The House has certainly proven its disregard for the rule of law and the United States constitution, and thus their oaths. The article of impeachment is contrary to the 1st amendment of the constitution, does not pass the test of “immanent lawless action”, and thus does not raise to “incitement” according to any American law. In other words, they are impeaching him based on something they made up, a clear weaponization and abuse of power. — NOS4A2

Why disregard for the rule of law? You seem to equate impeachment with a criminal trial, but it is not. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not to be understood in the sense of criminal law doctrine as pertaining to a certain set of defined crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors denotes a rather nebulous category of behaviors that are unbecoming of the executive power. The verdict rendered is also not of a criminal nature. Criminal law sanctions punishment, the inflicting of suffering on the person convicted. The aim of impeachment is not to punish, it is to remove from office because the person concerned is considered to behave inappropriately, or overstepping the boundaries of his powers. Since there is no punishment in play there is no need for the strict legal protection for suspects under criminal trials such as the lex scripta and lex certa requirements. The same reason actually why Trump is not just by an impartial judge or jury but by the inherently partisan members of the house and senate.

If it was a pointless poll, what was the point citing it in the first place?

These are things they cannot explain. They can only explain it away. — NOS4A2

Are you referring to this: "18% of Americans named Trump, 15% named Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci." ?

That is simple mathematics no? That is why many election systems such as the French have a first an a second round. It just shows that Trump has a very firm and loyal base, not per se a large one. But you know that, you are bright enough.

The most beautiful thing is that nobody remembers that the cause of the riot in the Capitol in the first place was the biggest electoral fraud of all time, an obvious crime of high treason protected by the Senate and Big Tech. — Rafaella Leon

Fuck me, totally forgot about that one! Thanks Raf. Guys, have you been following that election fraud thingy? They are all in it, the judiciary, Republican governors, Even Hugo Chaves was raised from the dead to play his part! It must have slipped my mind...

Indeed that was exactly the word that got me here Benkei :D But anyway, why is someone banned for posting his wife's boobies? I mean, sure delete the post and quickly have a talk with the guy, but a ban? Isn't that a bit like... puritan? It is not that this is a forum that caters to 10 year olds....

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it. — counterpunch

You think truth and politics can be easily separated, but that is a naïve notion. I believe in rational discourse too, but the questions we ask produce the answers we get and the questions we ask are a result of politics, not truth. You simply buy into a different set of assumptions than most people who are considered to be on the left would. You believe in free markets, but just think about the enormous apparatus of rules required to keep a market free. In free market societies we have constructed a whole battery of rules and regulations, top down, to protect our 'free market'. Now leftists would say if we have that battery of rules anyway and if free market requires an infrastructure, why not tax people for its use? We can use it to steer society in the direction we find desirable.

Now liberatrians would say that no such steering is warranted, but they forget that a free market is itself a steering mechanism. It promotes certain values and penalizes others. One is not inherently more free than the other, it simply depends on your assumptions. This clash of people with a different outlook on life, the values worthy of protection and the virtues that are to be cultivated is what is called the political. The left is no ore 'getting off' on telling people what to think as the right 'gets off' on exploitation of others.

Tobias should be enlisted to do this — The Opposite

Thanks I take it as a compliment, though my time is also extremely limited... I am of the conviction that there is one reason for all. People from all stripes and walks of life can understand the difference between a good and a bad argument. That is an essential article of faith in philosophy I think, though not uncontroversial.

Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas. — Rafaella Leon

Communist censors? A lot must have changed since I went MIA. Or do you just use 'communist' as a label for people who's political views you do not like? If so, isn't that some sort of 'Godwin' you exploit? The censors would never allow me to call you a national socialist for instance, but hey you may call everyone communist and associate them with Stalin.

If the Trumper movement was about anti-corruption.. Trump is more corrupt than all the insider politicians so don't know what that's about either. My theory is people like leaders that act like dicks. They want an idiot boss that just rules by force of personality and not reasoned understanding. — schopenhauer1

I certainly do not rule that out and as has been pointed out above, it is a staple in fascist ideology, charismatic leadership as Weber called it. Here we saw the clash between charismatic leadership and formal rational leadership play out. I do also think though in order for people to risk being hurt there must be something at stake for them, apart from a leader that is a dick. Whether they marched against their own interests is irrelevant, they thought they marched for them.

But the most obvious disparity is in the cultural response. Trump has already been banned from social media for “incitement to violence” whereas BLM, its leaders, its countless enablers have not. In fact, they received corporate donations in the countless of millions, and support from virtue signallers world wide. (We cannot know whether companies like Apple donate because they believe in the cause or because they didn’t want their apple stores looted). The one Trumpist riot is panned as violent rebellion while a wide variety of euphemism is used to explain away the hundreds of BLM riots. — NOS4A2

Yes and it is entirely rational to do so. It is a tried and tested way of dealing with protest groups and it is called accommodation. (At least in the parlance of Dutch governance studies it is). It is rational because oppression does not work and and they demand a seat at the table, so you give them a seat at the table. The strategy is also known as repressive tolerance in Marxis palance. Corporate sponsors of course donate because they see they have sympathy of a lot of people and the protesters and their sympathisers are a significant market. The BLM riots display a wholly different pattern from the trump riot and that is because their aims are different. Trumpers do not wat a seat at the table (they have that), they want to determine the table and who is sitting on it. That is a much more ambitious and dangerous aim. I wonder why you keep missing the distinction while i has been explained in countless forms.

I spent the evening glued to the news and was disappointed with the reactionary response to the protest, which not only condemned the violence, but also the spirit. All that hogwash about an assault on “the citadel of liberty” and "democracy" was laughable, especially given that for the last 4 years we’ve been taught that violent protest was the surest expression of the voiceless. Perhaps if the Trumpers burned down innocent people’s businesses and looted Target the politico-media class would paint a different picture.

For once it was aimed at the guilty. Seeing the picture of lawmakers cowering behind their benches and their armed guards reminded me that these are the people that send young men and women to war. (“Lawmaker” is a specious term. They do not write our laws—hell they don’t even read them—they just sign whatever lands at their desk, more evidence that this “citadel of liberty” is a citadel of incompetence and corruption). And until now, our lawmakers have been mostly insulated from the pestilence they’ve let loose upon the country. — NOS4A2

I agree partially with you NOS actually. There are multiple levels of analysis here. At the highest level (the level of spirit ;) ) one may say that the BLM protesters and Trumpers share similarities. It is a backlash against a system that is stacked against both groups, albeit in different ways. The working class, even the middle class have legitimate gripes against the system that governs currently. It is actually a bloody shame that even during a pandemic the amount of millionaires has risen whereas a great many people see their livelihood in danger. And well that increasing gap is partially due to the policies that come from the Capitol and the government buildings of other places. So yes, there is a legitimate outpouring of anger and maybe a revolutionary spirit, Streetlight also alluded to that in earlier posts. Indeed the situation is so polarized that angered groups turn to violence. Now violence of course has indeed always been the means of the masses to effectuate social change. Libertte, egalite and fraternite did not come about in the ballot box, indeed even universal suffrage is the result of violence.

Indeed the reporting on such events is by and large 'conservative' and anti-revolutionary, also here I agree with NOS. Especially when such revolutionary attempts have a chance at succeeding one will see that vested interests in the status quo will vilify them. I was rather amazed with CNN's reporting of the event. In every sentence the name Trump was mentioned, they also had to mention what a terrible person he was, lest we would not get the message. In my view that is not needed and only plays into the hands of those saying that 'the media' is against them.

Where I disagree is the ease with which you equivocate one protest with another. As Praxis pointed out, the Trumpers proclaimed the Capitol to be 'their house!'. Now would a BLM protester do that and what would we think when he/she would. If he would I would find that a hopeful sign because it means she still saw himself a part of mainstream society and did feel that the representatives ruled in her or his name. My hunch is she he would not. In a sentiment I would totally understand, he might well consider it a long standing symbol of oppression. The point is that where white working and middles classes have legitimate bones to pick, the black working and middle classes have those to a much greater degree. The system is much more stacked against them than against Trump's supporters.

That partially explains the different types of violence and the different targets. Looting is a sign that one wants stuff that one cannot have but others do. The stores for the rich are just as much of a legitimate target as is the Capitol because in the eyes of many protesters they are just as guilty. They benefit from the unequal opportunity structure. (That is not saying I approve of it, I am merely trying to understand) The opportunities is what the Trumpers have more than the BLM protester (of course not all, it is a generalisation as you have underestood I guess). What the Trumper wants is direct influence on government and he is actually against the new government because he fears for his advantaged position. That makes the Capitol the prime target. The Trumper is afraid of losing a certain position and entitlement. On the level of spirit it might well be a revolution, on the level of ideology where these different groups fight for the Trump storm is actually a counter revolution. Trumpers intend to stop the wheel of change, which as they rightly perceive is not running in their direction.

The difference is actually starkly seen in the difference in deployment at BLM protesters and Jan 6. The level of oppression perceived as needed to quell BLM protests is far higher than at Trump rallies apparently. Could it be that that is the case because the Trumpers are still seen as people still benefited by the system whereas the BLM protester is not? They were wrong, they underestimate the level of fever and anger that can be instilled by national populists, but essentially that is the difference. That also explains why BLM protests lingered on and these will not. Trumpers still have far more to lose.