My point was not to defend tariffs. It was an example of a way to gain compliance without the unreasonable expectation that people will change.

. Trump wants to have a much greater role in Federal Reserve policy and decisions. At a news conference yesterday he said:

The Federal Reserve is a very interesting thing and it's sort of gotten it wrong a lot ...And you know that's very largely a — it's a gut feeling. I believe it's really a gut feeling ...I feel the president should have at least say in there, yeah. I feel that strongly. I think that, in my case I made a lot of money. I was very successful. And I think I have a better instinct than, in many cases, people that would be on the Federal Reserve or the chairman.

A "very successful" businessman who was bankrolled and bailed out by his father several times, who declared bankruptcy six times, and repeatedly cheated contractors. What he is most successful for is selling his name and image, letting others do the work and walking away when things do not work out.

It is not clear whether he thinks the federal government can operate this way. His "better instincts" do not include the understanding that the United States of America is not a business, however much he wants to slap his name on it.

If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not.

You choose to have the next generation, — schopenhauer1

You can choose not to procreate but there are others who will not make that same choice.

Aristophanes was a comic poets making serious social commentary. No doubt the play drew a great deal of laughter from the audience. In terms of teaching by example the son learned his lesson well. One thing the audience is left to consider is what it might mean to honor your father when your father is not honorable. On a larger scale what is at issue is the problem of the ancestral.

I think that incremental change is possible. We already have a global economy. We may not be able to get to the point of global agreement but we can impose tariffs and wealth taxes on those who move capital from place to place in order to avoid paying taxes.

.

Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st century — Benkei

Concise summary: wealth inequality (wealth or capital versus income) is high and rising,

What is to be done: global agreement to tax the rich.

Obviously, this is the exact opposite of what the Party formerly known as "Republican" advocates and practices.





.

And if a parent smoked a kid might argue that if their parent did it than why should they feel compelled not to even though it's clearly not a good decision in general? — TiredThinker

This reminds me of Aristophanes The Clouds where after attending Socrates "thinkery" a son argues with his father, who sent him there in order to learn how to argue his way out of his father's having to pay his gambling debts, that if it is right for a father to beat his son then it is right for a son to beat his father. The father's response is to burn the thinkery down.

What bothers me the most is that they fantasize about such an authoritarian model, but only far away from their territory. — javi2541997

I agree but the territory in question is not just geographical. It is a growing threat in the U.S. and Europe. Those who favor authoritarianism want change, but change in itself is not good. They cannot see that change can be for the worse.

the best form of government for the people. — praxis

The demagogue appears to be the champion of the people, but with his rise to power reveals what he is, an autocrat. The rhetoric of the book is transparent. The "innocents" versus the "unhuman". Only some of the people are truly "the people". At a minimum the unhuman should have no role in government.

Franco and Pinochet are regarded as heroes.

The article quotes from the book:

Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,

Of course if the "unhumans" are not regarded as human they need not be treated as human. As such things go, it is likely that just who is or will be counted as unhuman will be a growing group that will include everyone that does not support their revolution.

There is an article in the NYT: "JD Vance Just Blurbed a Book Arguing That Progressives Are Subhuman" Until recently the book, Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) could be be dismissed as too far to the extreme right to be taken seriously, but with Vance's endorsement and a forward by Stephen Bannon, it has entered the Republican mainstream. The author, Jack Posobiec, promoted the conspiracy theory that Democrats ran a satanic child abuse ring beneath a popular Washington pizzeria.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as:

... a political operative and internet performer of the anti-democracy hard right, known primarily for creating and amplifying viral disinformation campaigns ... He helped lead the “Stop the Steal” campaign ...He has also collaborated with white nationalists, antigovernment extremists, members of the Proud Boys, and neo-Nazis in his capacity as an operative.

I would very much like to believe its over, but I don't. I doubt that the continued focus on Trump will sway voters. Outside of the MAGA cult most who will vote for him will do so despite who he is and what he says. The Dobbs decision will play a role. Beyond that the key factor will be the voter's own financial well-being, both in fact and perception. The case can and I think will be made that Trump failed on his economic promises and Biden did more and Harris will continue to do more for American industry, small business, infrastructure, and jobs.

He was in a coma, — Relativist

A medically induced coma. The Esquire article cited above includes factual details of his medically induced coma. Each time they woke him and he became conscious he would thrash about so the put him back under.

I started a thread on Plato's metaphysics a few years ago in which I discussed this. From that thread:

Aristotle identifies three kinds of number:

arithmos eidetikos - idea numbers
arithmos aisthetetos - sensible number
metaxy - between
(Metaphysics 987b)

Odd as it may sound to us, the Greeks did not regard one as a number. One is the unit, that which enables us to count how many. How many is always how many ones or units or monads that are being counted. Countable objects require some one thing that is the unit of the count, whether it be apples, or pears, or pieces of fruit.

Eidetic numbers are not counted in the same way sensible numbers are. Eidetic numbers belong together in ways that units or monads do not.

The eidetic numbers form an ordered hierarchy from less to more comprehensive.

... the "first" eidetic number is the eidetic "two"; it represents the genos of being as such, which comprehends the two eide "rest and "change". (Jacob Klein, Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origins of Algebra).

Considering that the make-up gets darker and darker I think he may be aiming for one of those black jobs. It seems that there is no longer much demand for orange ones.

I am analyzing the ‘goodness’ of such a species within the context of their species qua whole and not nature qua whole. — Bob Ross

Yes, and that is where your analysis fails.

You have to demonstrate why I should think of it in terms of nature and not the species — Bob Ross

I do not think it necessary to demonstrate why a part cannot be adequately understood without regard for the whole of which it is a part. The problem of wholes and parts is fundamental to Aristotle, as it is to much of Greek philosophy. Where in Aristotle does he reject this?

...for me, both are capable of separate analysis since ‘goodness’ is relativistic. — Bob Ross

For you that might be the case, but unless you want to sidestep Aristotle you need to show that for him the good is relative. In the Nicomachean Ethics, which is about the human good, Aristotle says:

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.

A distinction is made between some good, which is relative to some thing, and the good to which all things aim. What the good is to which all things aim is not simply a question about any one thing but all things. It is a question about the whole. This is not relative to any one thing or species.

Firstly, how does this negate the ‘devils species’? — Bob Ross

It does not negate the devil species, it negates your claim that it has only one function.

You said:

The problem with your example is that a knife has more than the function of cutting — Bob Ross

So too your devil species. But why say that it is a problem for the knife example unless you are claiming that the devil species has only one function? There seems to be some things that were n that exchange that are now missing.

It is a hypothetical meant to tease out the consistent conclusion of Aristotle’s concept of ‘good’: you are trying to migrate it to actuality or practicality. — Bob Ross

In that case you have failed. As you said:

I am having a hard time fathoming how Aristotle is avoiding this glaring issue, — Bob Ross

That is not because Aristotle is avoiding it, but because 1) Aristotle is not concerned with fantasy creatures, but with the nature of things as they are, 2) you fail to see why it is incompatible with Aristotle's view of nature, 3) you assume that there is no question of the good for Aristotle, only some good relative to some thing.

They are completely separable: I can analyze the function of a liver in isolation to how the body, as a whole, works. — Bob Ross

They are not completely separable! Livers do not function apart from the body they are in. They are not some separate thing that just so happens to be in a body but have a purpose of their own unrelated to the body.

...if I take your argument seriously, then you would have to go further and analyze everything in terms of the largest context—which would be the good of reality (whatever that may be). — Bob Ross

Right! In the Metaphysics he says:

We consider first, then, that the wise man knows all things, so far as it is possible, without having knowledge of every one of them individually …

(982a)

As far as possible means there is a limit to what we know. We cannot know all things. More specifically, it is the beginning and ends, the arche and telos, of all things that we do not know. With regard to each thing too, however, it requires knowing its arche and telos.

The beginning or source of your devil species is your imagination, but if we are to treat it as if it were a real species without knowing its true origin and end we cannot claim to know its nature. To take its being as its end or purpose is to miss the big picture. The good of an intelligent species is not simply to exist. Its nature as an intelligent being must be taken into consideration. Taking the example of man, his intelligence leads him to the question of his aim. It is not some notion of mindless happiness, but the realization of what is highest in man

there's Teleprompter Trump and then there's Truth Social Trump, — Wayfarer

An apt distinction.

NOS is really good at evasion. — frank

Who?

So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct? — frank

The Trumpsters kvetch but its Meshuggeneh. (That is about the limit of my Yiddish)

Anyone who is honest and paying attention knows that 1) unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary an incumbent president will be the nominee, 2) Biden's performance during the debate is compelling reason to have him step down. Not simply because he was likely to loose but because there is substantive reasons to question whether he is fit and able to be president for the next four years. 3) It is Trumpian conjecture that the primary voters feel that they have been treated unfairly. 4) There is good evidence that Harris enjoys greater voter approval that Biden did before stepping down. Most likely, many primary voters approve of the change. 5) The Trumpsters are pretending that it is a matter of fairness, but the only thing that they really think is unfair is that they spent a lot of time, effort, and money preparing to run against Biden.6) They question Biben's competency and wanted to make it a major campaign issue, but when after the debate more and more Democrats raised concerns and acted on it they cry foul.

The problem with your example is that a knife has more than the function of cutting ... — Bob Ross

Now you are catching on! Just as a knife has more than one function, a natural species does as well.

There is a difference between something that is in a species' nature and what that nature is. You misunderstand what he means for the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a thing to be relative to its nature. What is relative to its nature and what its nature is with regard to its telos is not the same. It is good for birds to fly, but as Icarus learned, not for men to fly. Hubris and violence may be in our species, but that does not mean it is good for us to be hubristic or violent.

Now, it does not become a ‘bad’ or lesser ‘good’ X because one cannot grab it; because we stipulated its sole function is cutting. — Bob Ross

The example is meant to illustrate the problem of postulating an intelligent species with only one function. If intellect is, as Aristotle says in De Anima, the part of the soul by which it knows and understands, then any species that is intelligent must have as part of its nature the capacity to understand. Any species that has a mind, has more than one function. At a minimum, it has the function of thinking, or reasoning. An intelligent species that is not intelligent is a contradiction.

It seems like you are denying that what is good is for a thing to fulfill its nature and instead it is for a thing to fulfill its nature if it is a proper part of the whole. — Bob Ross

That a species is a proper part of the whole is essential for understanding what a species is, that is, for understanding its nature. It is not as if these are two separate things - its nature apart from nature and its nature as part of nature. We can, when discussing such things, make a distinction, but the distinction does not exist in the nature of things.

This doesn’t seem accurate to me; because then a thing could be bad which is fulfilling its nature. — Bob Ross

Right! That is the problem with your devil species. One more once:

It is asking how something bad is good. — Fooloso4

and:

A "devil species" is bad, no matter how good it is at being bad. In fact, the better it is at being bad, the less good is. — Fooloso4

Moreover, the relation of a thing to a bigger whole isn’t necessarily an aspect of its nature: is a part of a rabbit’s nature to get eaten by a fox? — Bob Ross

The whole of nature is not an event in nature. What it is to be a fox or rabbit is not to eat or be eaten by the other. What it means to be your devil species, on the other hand, is as you would have it, to destroy other species. Just as we do not understand foxes and rabbits in terms of eating and being eaten, we cannot understand your devil species in terms solely of destroying and being destroyed.

His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that. — frank

This tells us something about him and his campaign. Their bad judgment is one thing. Trump's wild overestimation of his abilities to win people over is quite another. He had some success with the Art of the Schmooze in his business dealings, at least until his reputation caught up with him; but his attempt to dominate a room of journalists as if they must be put in their place and lying to them, shows how out of touch he is. No doubt the Trumpsters will applaud, but they are not the people he wants to convince.

Why did his handlers even let him appear? — Wayfarer

He has no handlers because he cannot be handled. He cannot even control himself.

Suppose someone invents a knife. As a knife it fulfills its function - to cut. As such you might say it is a good knife. It is so "good', in fact, that it can cut through anything, and does. It cuts right through the cutting board, the table, and everything else it comes near, leaving behind a path of death and destruction. Having witnessed this from what is at the moment, a safe distance, would you still say it is a good knife? Now before answering too quickly, consider the other attributes of a good knife, most importantly, how well it handles. This knife literally cannot be handled. It would cut off your hand.

You wish to discuss your species in the context of Aristotelianism but you ignore the context of Aristotelianism in order to discuss your imaginary species. The part, a species, cannot be understood apart from or in abstraction from the whole of which it is a part. The whole is intelligibly prior to the part. This is fundamental to Aristotle's Metaphysics, to the problem of what is first, to the problem of first philosophy.

You are sidestepping the hypothetical. It is akin to if I asked you "if you had $1,000,000,000,000,000, then what would you buy?" — Bob Ross

You are sidestepping Aristotle! It has become increasingly apparent that for you Aristotle is irrelevant. This thread is not a "rejoinder to Aristotelian ethics".

Whether or not such a species would fit well into the “ordered whole” of nature is irrelevant — Bob Ross

Mistake the part for the whole. You insist that:

Since Aristotle is attaching the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a thing relative to its nature, — Bob Ross

but claim that nature, which is the source of species, is irrelevant? You are now reading the Metaphysics and claim to understand Aristotle's points but fail to understand a fundamental point: it is an inquiry into the arche, the source or beginning of things. The question of the goodness of a species cannot abstracted from the question of the goodness of the whole of which it is a part.

You are accepting Aristotle’s concept of ‘goodness’ (as underlined) and then turning around and irrelevantly commenting that it is absurd for such a species to exist as a coherent member of nature—that doesn’t address the hypothetical I have presented. — Bob Ross

The hypothetical you present is incompatible with Aristotle. That is not an irrelevancy. Aristotle was a pretty smart guy. Do you really think that he would not have seen what you see so plainly? It is not that Aristotle failed to consider this hypothetical, it is that such a creature has not place in his understanding of the world.

You would have to demonstrate how the hypothetical (stated above) is inconsistent or incoherent with Aristotle’s concept of ‘good’. — Bob Ross

I have already done that.

I understand the point is that Aristotle thinks that the telos of each species is well-ordered, but I think it doesn’t help his case because of how he defined goodness. — Bob Ross

It is not that the telos of each species is well-ordered, it is that the whole, of which each species is a part is well-ordered. Once again:

Aristotle points out that there are various meanings of good. — Fooloso4

To take one meaning as is it applies to all or the whole leads to your confusion.

quote="Bob Ross;921928"]

Form is the idea of the essence of a thing

If by idea you mean a concept then that is wrong.

the form of a human being is the essence of a human being. — Bob Ross

No. A human being is not a disembodied entity.

If I take your argument seriously (that a human being’s form is fully realized immediately) ... — Bob Ross

The species form "human being" is why the offspring of human beings are human beings, whether they have one arm or two.

You are just going around in circles, trying to distinguish these terms when they are clearly the same. — Bob Ross

Aristotle distinguishes these terms. Aristotle comes to us through Latinized translation. Because of this the meaning of the Greek terms is obscured. See the section Translating Aristotle from the IEP article on Aristotle's Metaphysics and Selections from Joe Sachs's Introduction
to His Translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, here

Continuing my previous post:

Its form is what it is to be what it is. What differentiates it from other things or kinds.

Aristotle points out that there are various meanings of good. The NE begins by saying that all things aim at some good. A "devil species" is bad, no matter how good it is at being bad. In fact, the better it is at being bad, the less good is.

The good of a thing cannot be determined apart from what it is to be that thing, apart from its telos. In his translation of the Metaphysics Joe Sachs points out:

Aristotle does not say that animals, plants, and the cosmos have purposes but that the are purposes, ends-in-themselves ... Aristotle's "teleology" is nothing but his claim that all natural beings are self-maintaining wholes.

We are back again to the absurd notion that a natural thing's telos, its place is the cosmos is to harm other species. Such a cosmos would not be a well-ordered whole.

The form of a thing is its nature ... — Bob Ross

A things form is inherent to it. It is the being at work (energeia) of a thing If it was not continually being at work staying the same (entelecheia) from its beginning it would cease to be.

It's nature is not separate from nature. It is a part of not apart from nature. To understand the nature of a thing is to understand its place and activity within nature.

Form (eidos) and nature (phusis) are not two terms with the same meaning. In Book V, chapter IV, of the Metaphysics he says:

In one sense, nature means the coming into being of things that are born.

Nature encompasses both form (eidos) and matter (hule).

(i.e., its essence — Bob Ross

'Essence' is an English translation of the Latin 'essentia'. A term coined by Cicero to translate 'ousia'. Literally it is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. Ousia refers to some specific being. Aristotle or Bob Ross.

In short, to realize one's nature is not to realize one's form of being.

Nothing you said addressed anything I said...at all. — Bob Ross

You said:

if what is good is just a thing realizing its form, then there cannot be a further question of “why is it good for a thing to realize its form?”. — Bob Ross

You take what is for Aristotle the question of the Metaphysics, the question of being, and treat it as an answer. Things do not realize their form as if it is something they do not already have, something that they are not already. It's form or eidos is not something that comes after it already is.

Added: This posted before I was done. I continue below.

I've been reading through Aristotle's "Metaphysics", and I think I understand Aristotle's points enough to start tackling this post you made. — Bob Ross

The fact that you think you understand Aristotle's points is probable evidence that you do not. See Book ll.

if what is good is just a thing realizing its form, then there cannot be a further question of “why is it good for a thing to realize its form?”. — Bob Ross

These are two parts of the same question, that is, what is for a thing to be what it? What is the good that each thing seeks? This is a question, not an answer to the question of being . What does it mean for a man to realize his nature? What does this look like? With this last question we begin to get closer to the original sense of eidos, which has been buried under centuries of divergent sedimented meaning.

Only recently I began viewing him in the manner in which he doesn't bend over to the establishment or any secret societies and so on. — Shawn

His choose of Supreme Court nominees was decided by the Federalist Society. His come to Jesus charade was created to get Evangelical backing. His sycophant bowing down to Putin requires bending over to kiss his ass.

he really is the man of the people. — Shawn

He really is not. He is the privileged son of a wealthy, racist, corrupt, real estate swindler (Fred Trump) who joined his father's enterprise to bilk the government and battle one law suit after another. His father gave him what he says was a "small loan". It was at least a million dollars with which he started a series of failed businesses, leaving the contractors to foot the bill. In an earlier skin he was shunned by the "beautiful people" of New York he so desperately wanted to be a member of. He tried to buy his way in, but his ostentatious attempts to display class were regarded as too crass even for them. He was obsessed with and courted the gossip columnists, anonymously feeding them stories about himself. The infamous lawyer Roy Cohn was his mentor.

He is a manufactured image promoted by reality TV. Packaged and sold to the American people. A con man who has conned his way to the top.

At a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022 Trump said: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
NBC News

Some will deny he said this but there is a video of it.

Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025. From an interview on Fox News:

It’s a group of very, very conservative people. And they wrote a document that many of the points are fine. Many of the points are absolutely ridiculous.

But during the same interview he also said that he has:

“never seen” the plan and had “nothing to do with” it.

He has never seen it and has nothing to do with it, and yet he knows it has many fine points and many that are absolutely ridiculous. What we do not know, because he has not said, is which of them does he think are the many fine points and which are ridiculous.

Paul Dans has stepped down from his leadership position on the project, but a spokesman for Heritage said the project is not shutting down. In typical fashion, following the criticism of the plan, Trump is now attempting distance himself from the project, many of whose proposals were crafted by people who served in his first administration. Unfortunately for him, either way, the damage has been done.

I expect his opponents will continue to keep this before the public.

At some point his public speaking style changed from that of a fifth grader struggling to do a report on a book he had not read to that of a third rate comic doing borscht belt shtick.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. — Sam26

Based on the description quoted they do not separate from their bodies.

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence.

There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body. — Sam26

As you may know, his account has been criticized. For example:here

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.

I too question the distinction and relationship being made between consciousness and reality.

That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. — frank

The reason the Court is now so conservative is because McConnell blocked Obama's nominee and Trump, who lost the popular vote, went with the Federalist Society's recommendations.

According to Politico:

Our research shows the Court took a sharp swerve two years ago — and its decisions now closely mirror the views of the average Republican, not the average American.

According to the Pew Research Center, favorable views of the Supreme Court have fallen to an historic low.

Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob. — frank

The Founders worked to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority can be just as dangerous. And when lifetime appointments reflect the will of that minority we are all dragged down by a mob calling itself "patriots" and "the people".

A term limit of 10 or 15 years combined with staggered start dates seems long enough to counteract changing whims.

The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! — Amity

I do know that, and that is why I don't know what you mean. It is not a term with a single agreed upon meaning. It is used with regard to various concepts and mythologies.

And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. — Amity

Right. That is, as I understand it, what Socrates talk of likenesses is about. On the one hand is the question of the relation between the original and proposed image, on the other is the power of the image, of where it might take us.

I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. — Amity

Many take some mythology of god or gods as the truth, in some cases with a god being the purported source. They might even object to it being called an mythology.

If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...? — Amity

I am not suggesting we accept any likeness as more than a likeness. Without knowledge of the gods we are not able to say that any likeness is like the thing it is said to be a likeness of, but we can consider whether a likeness is a good likeness in so far as where that likeness might take us. Whether it inspires us to be good and do good, to be just, to love. I think Socrates has something like this in mind when he says that the gods are good.

Has any of it taught you how to tell the young both what to do and not do in such terms as they get it? — tim wood

Probably not. I have no answers. The best I might be able to do is give them a sense of phronesis, I cannot impart wisdom but perhaps can help them to appreciate the value of an attitude of thoughtfulness.

So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him? — Amity

I do not think it is from a shared perspective, but I don't think he was pandering. Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions.

When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit. — Amity

Well, the gods are, according to the text, not corporeal. When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being.

Why is it important to please them and not ourselves? — Amity

Oh the impiety! Drink the hemlock. If the gods are in charge then it would be best to please them. There are, of course, many problems with this. The Euthyphro addresses the question of what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves.

So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth — Amity

Socrates claims that the gods are good in every way (274a), but the poets' myths of the gods does not match this description. If we look at the whole of this paragraph it begins with "likeness to the truth". It is the person who knows the truth who is best equipped in every respect to discover the likenesses. One who knows the truth of the gods who is best equipped to give a true likeness. Without seeing or properly understanding god, however, (246c) mortal man cannot give a true likeness of the gods. We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way.

Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of?

An example comes to mind: to build the foundation for a house, you might well look at a book that tells how to do that. — tim wood

Given the connection between books and philosophy in your OP I took the question to be about books that address philosophical issues.

And this all-a-piece with the notion that meditation/study of books, at the expense of all else, is a destructive practice. — tim wood

Yes. I agree. I have spent long periods of my now long life without meditation/study of books. On the other hand, my time with books has been in large part a time with others as a student, a teacher, a friend talking about what we have found in the books we read.

I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. — frank

I agree that eliminating Trump does not eliminate the problem. I don't know if the factions can remain united without him though.