The sense of the 'subject' as correlated with human experince did not exist until Kant invented it a millennia and a half after Western philosophy got its start so the idea that it got 'lost' is as laughable as it is outright wrong. It is a product of the enlightenment mobilized against a feudal order for which the 'subject' was precisely what we today call the 'object' - as in, the subject of the autopsy. But in your well honed tradition of making up history from scratch, please do go on - these philosophical fairy tales and fictional histories are wonderfully inventive, if nothing else.

What are the conditions? Apparently "not killing the planet" isn't one of them. Maybe like: they can kill the planet, but they have to be modest about it?

Oh my mistake unconditional votes which totally don't count as unconditional support as far as they're concerned ha ha what a big difference silly me.

And I suppose they give soooo many fucks about people who will vote for them no matter what too. That other very well known mechanism of accountability: unconditional support. Gosh that must have them quaking in their boots. I hope they'll be OK. I mean it's almost as if this enables them to 'not give a fuck' about non-voters. As if this were actively toxic to democracy. So crazy to think about imagine if someone did that ha ha.

Imagine thinking that withholding a vote is the only way to hold someone to account. — Xtrix

Have you met American politicians? Or frankly, politicians in general? You keep harping on about the 'real world' - yet it's clear you've never seen one.

Guess I was unclear. :roll: — Xtrix

Mmm, your point wasn't at all that one must, despite it all, vote for Joe Biden, because not doing so would be like giving up on the civil rights movement. Mm-hm, not one bit.

Now back to the real world. — Xtrix

Where one can not vote for Biden, joyfully and with panache. A very cool world (Here comes the bit where you tell me you don't simp for Biden. I can't wait. I imagine it will be something like: "you can critique him all you like - you just can't do anything whatsoever to hold him materially accountable for the suffering he causes").

but I think it's a fault with the modern usage of the word — Wayfarer

It doesn't exist in any ancient useage of the word either. In fact outside of your fringe fabrication, it doesn't exist at all. You're of course welcome to your eccentricities, so long as you don't falsely project them onto fake histories.

If those were the only choices, and there was even a chance that Goebbels would be less damaging than Hitler, or that there would be even a slightly better chance of stopping atrocities with him in power, then yes of course. — Xtrix

A perfectly viable choice might be to shoot both in the head. Nonetheless it is good to know that in a fight between Goebbels and Hitler, you would have Goebbels' back. Very cool and normal.

Almost like the claim that I compared Joe Biden to the civil rights movement. :chin: — Xtrix

Biden is indeed better than Trump on the environment, and the pushing of environmental activists — like the Sunrise Movement — will continue, despite predictable setbacks. The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well — Xtrix

Are you OK?

you’re the only one making it. — Xtrix

You brought it up, brother. Just as you can't seem to stop talking about Zizek (are you OK? Did Zizek hurt you?). Or Trump ("Goebbels is better than Hitler, so I'll throw my lot in with Goebbels"). Or the false idea that I equate Biden and Trump (Biden plays a quite different role from Trump: Biden works to kill the left, and is effective at it). Gosh it's like nothing you say has any basis in reality and is entirely projection. All the better to ignore the salient point that you sanction the enabling of the death of the planet. I too, would need alot of projection if I were to do that I guess.

Depends on how willing America is to fight for what scraps of Empire she can continue to exploit. If the US regime is smart, there will be no hot conflict. If they're morons - and there is little to rule this out - they might be.

Ah yes, the civil rights movement who famously *checks notes* institued the crime bill to throw hundreds and thousands of black citizens into jail. The civil rights movement, who eulogized those who filibustered civil rights acts. Wait, sorry, wrong notes, confused that with Joe Biden. You can see how it's confusing I mean they're basically the same thing, definitely comparable, not at all a stupid comparison. That said maybe Joe Biden will lead the next long, hot summer of '67 and actually accomplish anything at all or maybe he will... oh yes that's right my mistake again - initiate wealth transfers to the rich and preside over the largest offshore drilling auction ever, while approving drilling platforms at record pace. Ah, MLK would be so proud :cry:

Man when Trump gets back into power because Biden is holding the door open for him I can't wait to push him to the left. This can absolutely be done and does not in any way sound as utterly fucking stupid as the idea of pushing Biden to the left. I mean the latter must be so terrified of *checks notes* people voting for him regardless of how much he damage he causes. Which is definitely a perfectly viable strategy and not at all completely enabling of said damage. Such a threat that hangs over the poor guy no wonder he has done so much for the left like rename streets after BLM and stuff.

Hey I'm just the messenger maybe save some of your energy for attacking the bloke who is killing the planet. Y'know - the one who you constantly run apologetics for.

Morrison Government rejects key COP26 objectives hours after agreeing to them in Glasgow

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/angus-taylor-rejects-cop26-objectives-coal-net-zero-2030-target/13631082

wow what a surprise said no one ever

BiDeN wILl Be BetTeR fOr ThE eNvIRoNmEnT.

We WiLl PuSh BiDeN tO tHe LeFt!

AcTiViSm!!

Fucking clowns.

And you abuse this justified distinction to attribute being to sentience, exclusively. That is the lie.

It supports just the kind of distinction between the Greek use of the verb 'to be', and their conception of the nature of being, how that differs from, and is broader than, the modern definition of 'existence'. — Wayfarer

It does not support the further distinction, made up by you whole-cloth, that being accords to sentient beings and existence to rocks. If anything, being is a broader, not narrower, category than existence. There is a being not only of rocks, but ficticious rocks too.

Ironically it is not a hot button issue because no one would be so brash as to make this stuff up and pretend like it is a contentious issue at all, and the fact that you have done just that is what makes it absurd. So please stop lying, and then shifting the goal posts when you are called out for lying.

And I still think it's remarkable that this has to even be spelled out, let alone that it be a cause of such hostility. — Wayfarer

Wheather or not this is the case is utterly irrelevant because the study of being has never been about this. Listen: why are you fabricating history? Why are you literally lying? Why do you always lie when this topic is brought up?

You know you can just say: "I am of the opinion that 'being' ought to be reserved for sentient creatures, even though historical useage does not accord to my preferred usage (at all)?" Why do you attribute your quirks which nobody shares to history just because you think it ought to be the case?

I'm sorry that your inability to substantiate your fabrications led you to this nothingburger line.

Yes, I know all this quite well. Notably, there is not a single thing in what you quoted which makes being an exclusive domain of humans or apes or whathaveyou.

Rocks exist, but apes and humans are beings, and it's a significant distinction. — Wayfarer

Yeah this is your own little napkin distribution of the distinction that accords to nothing in philosophy. Please stop acting as though anyone but you sticks by it.

Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics Z:

"Now substance (=being) seems to belong most evidently to bodies. That is why we say that animals and plants and their parts are substances, and also natural bodies, such as fire, water, earth, and each thing of this sort, as well as such things, whether all or some, as are parts of these or from which they are composed (for example, the heaven and its parts, stars and moon and sun)".

What you call a 'forgetting' is a 'Wayfarer projecting into history'.

That is the only distinction I wished to make — Wayfarer

But, my argument is that we deploy the word 'being' with respect to beings such as ourselves, because it designates something which is absent in rocks, trees, and toothpaste. Not in apes, which are beings, albeit not rational, language-using beings. — Wayfarer

No it wasn't.

That essay is 'The Problem of Being and the Greek Verb 'To Be''by Charles Kahn. I think it supports the point that I was seeking to make — Wayfarer

It absolutely does not. It rightly makes a distinction between being and existence, but it in no way goes on to situate 'being' on the side of living or sentient things or what have you. The rest of your post is special pleading, and is irrelevant. There is no 'obvious problem' to anyone who does not drag their own personal and unwarranted presuppositions into the study of ontology.

The dude even regularly cites an essay I supplied to him to show him how completely off-base he is on this point and yet he still sticks to this fake meaning over and over again.

Says you who is the only person who ever tries to say thing 'being' = living entities despite having been told and shown multiple times that no one but you holds this position.

All wealth is socially generated and what wealth any single person has is a function of what society collectively decides is appropriate.

It's the one redeeming feature of a Trump administration - it is practically a left radicalization factory. But even when not in power, liberals find a way to fuck it up by channelling that energy into conspiracy theories about Putin, or to pretend that Trump is sui generis and make it a matter of personality politics. Literally anything to avoid substantial political questions in which Trump is a product of American politics as a whole - because this would make liberals complicit. Which of course, they are.

Americans don't need Putin as a scapegoat to blame for their utterly shit domestic politics. They can and are and ruining their country perfectly fine by themselves.

Wonder what it's going to be like in the second Trump administration. — ssu

It would be much like the current adminstration, except it will make liberals uncomfortable enough to say something because it will be honest about its depravity.

Imagine being against the state (when not run by Trump) but an apologist for billionaires.

Everyone that doesn't share your views is a bogie. Or a bougie. We know. — ssu

Nah, just you specifically because you make things up which are the literal opposite of reality.

... after which worker gains in terms of pay and rights have never been better. Again, I know that you are incapable of distinguishing great power games from workers movements (hint: it has to do with work and not inter-state politics), but that's to be expected from a bougie like you.

THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong. — ssu

Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. But one can see how a kindergarten-level confusion of worker solidarity for great power political tussles might lead one to be so catastrophically wrong. Or maybe you can tell me how the socialists were in charge of the General Staff over at the German ministry of war.

So if you could stop making stuff up that would be cool thanks.

And that was after WW1 — ssu

Yes, the interwar period is generally taken to have taken place after the first war and before the second war that is correct well done five stars for you. And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity despite this being literally the opposite of reality, your useless and uncited quote about socialists not putting a stop to WWI is an irrelevance and as useless as the made up facts your proffered initially.

Confusing the absence of 'international solidarity' for the power games of states is equally stupid but sure.

Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. — ssu

I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since.

Praising agreements made at COP is like praising a den of wolves for agreeing amongst each other to murder less chickens.

Yeah literally the only person who thinks neoliberalism is some big conspiracy is ssu.

I'm gonna pick up McNally's Against the Market and Hito Steyerl's Duty Free Art. There's a few others I want (specifically Enzo Traverso's Revolution: An Intellectual History, and Losurdo also has a newly translated book coming out in 2022, Democracy or Bonapartism, which I'm looking forward to) but I need to limit myself otherwise I will go broke.

Also currently reading I guess:

Edmund Leach - Rethinking Anthropology
Roland Barthes - Elements of Semiology
Claude Levi-Strauss - Myth and Meaning
Radhika Desai - Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization, and Empire

Mmm, which is I suppose why you and your ilk unconditionally flag carry for one of the most aggressive foreign policy war hawks to have ever breathed oxygen, under the banner of "progressivism".

fundamental nature is the ass-opposite of everything the right stands for. — James Riley

It's fundamental nature is killing poor people for American profits. I'd say it stands for exactly what the right does. And so too what passes for 'the left' in America too frankly.

You're probably right but it's funny to see someone call an institution of war criminals and murderers that preys on the poor and desperate and subcontracts for American corporate power a socialist institution.