I think Heidegger's most important claim here is that all metaphysics operates within the "horizon of production" and so this inversion between subject and object is in a very real sense pre-figured in the middle Greek reading of Being as eidos. I totally agree with you about the "thinness" of objectivity, and of course I think that Heidegger's destruction of metaphysics is an unimpeachable argument: philosophical thinking has always been bound up with technicity. I would also agree that the very fact that we can see our way to such a meta-philosophical conclusion hints at either a different way of thinking, or that we should be somewhat reticent in putting too much weight in our conclusion (as you clearly are).

On a very simplistic level, our ability to narrativize ourselves requires speech, which is inherently social. But on a deeper ontological level there's a need to at least examine the possibility that there is an anonymous self that precedes the narrative. In general the post-structuralist answer is no, we (like everything) amount to a web of differences.

I'm reminded of the war games atmosphere created by the two Bush presidents in the "Highway of Death" and "Shock & Awe". I never expected more of Dubya, but I was quite disconcerted by the elder Bush's actions.

We are who we are Moliere: this is the truth of existentialism, that while there is no escape from what we are, there is no refuge there either. The paradox of identity, perhaps best viewed as autopoesis, is in becoming who we are: it is an unfolding. Without delving too deeply into the philosophical problem, identity straddles logic, appearing both as a pre-logical capacity and as an attribute - but always as a trivial or contradictory one.

I couldn't quite figure out from the AP article whether this was Castile's 52nd traffic stop, or 53rd. Regardless, he was a veteran. The author of an article in Slate was wondering if this was a routine part of local government finances - can you shed any light on that BC? Anyway, he averaged three stops a year. I wonder how many traffic stops I would survive as an out of state white with a gun on my person?

Marx already envisaged such a post-labour environment, in which meaningful work ceases to be a burden and becomes a need. I'm inclined to read the communist maxim he popularized "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." as rooted in the Aristotelian tradition of the polis as the place in which truly human life emerges as opposed to one particular political project (communism). Neo-liberalism can be broadly characterized by the maxim "To each according to his abilities.". Broadly speaking what is described in America today as the left is concerned with fostering those abilities, while the right is concerned with maximizing what the individual can take (and keep) through the exercise of those abilities. This is the contradictory American dream. Obviously the expansion of government required to foster abilities is here pitted against the individual's "right" to take and keep as much as possible. The right's disillusion with the Republican establishment has much to do with their apparent inability or unwillingness to shrink government.

The typical Trump supporter finds himself with a marginalized life, and what scraps of meaning his life retains is threatened by change, especially globalization and immigration (at least in his mind). I think Obama is largely right here in that the ultimate cause of these disruptions is technology, although I don't think his singling out of automation is warranted. Regardless, these people - especially the middle-aged whites - are not thriving, and in many cases really need help: just not the kind that Trump can deliver. Trump's promise to hit the reset button - "Make America great again." - is of course an empty promise. Given their often dysfunctional lives and lack of critical thinking skills I find it hard to muster any democratic respect for their leaning.

If the media has an agenda, it likely can be summed up in terms of various attachments to globalization, which is viewed variously but within the "liberal media" is seen most often as containing the seeds for the cure for its own corrosive effects.

One of the stronger ironies in this situation is that many UK businesses will need to swallow EU regulations holus-bolus or lose their biggest export markets. I'm always personally conflicted when examining decisions like this because of my own New Left roots in libertarian socialism. As an outsider I tend to give the EU high marks for green policies and consumer protection, and recognize the necessity for bureaucratization and de-politicization in these areas. On the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the yawning democratic deficit.

What worries me more than the decision is the potential for a very destructive narrativization of the result, something that some of the Trumpf surrogates on this side of the Atlantic are pursuing with vigor.

A pox on both their houses! I avoid Israeli goods as I see no reason to treat them any differently than I would any other apartheid state. But I look at Palestine and based on the "Arab spring" I see no possibility of liberation for the people: they would be destined to be either a failed state or a client state, or maybe some toxic combination of the two.

Bernie's ideas would be center left in Canada, in fact they pretty much coincide with Justin Trudeau's. The socialism implied here is quite compatible with a vibrant capitalism. Unfortunately, Hillary is right that you can't implement single payer Medicare without willing partners in the states and given the enormous lobbying efforts of the insurance and drug companies. The real task of the moment is to re-shape the supreme court.

Okay, let's not get off topic here. Didn't Hillary murder someone in those dark days at the Rose Law Firm? Isn't she under investigation by the FBI? Didn't Putin laugh at her dog imitation? Putin knows how to handle homos, and Chechens.

Without Walmart, the American mouth-breather would be thoroughly fucked. Just imagine when president Trump puts a 45% duty on all of those Chinese goods. As for Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State I see no parallel with Kissinger whatsoever. Too bad the Arab Spring turned out to be a disaster, but I don't see any resemblance between Kissinger and Clinton.

But obviously then I don't (and never did) hold that proposition to be true. And it's quite clear to me that Tiff has other "reasons" for hating Hillary. But then again, I'm not sure we need to take reasons for hatred at face value. Nor is the application of logic to the notion that Hillary is reptilian a trivial matter.

I nearly fell into the same trap with Trump, but the Muslim ban was already sufficient for me. And the fact that he was seeking the Republican nomination.

No doubt your rationalizations are evidence of something. But even if I stated "The only possible reason to hate Hillary Clinton is misogyny." the statement would be false, not illogical. But don't let the truth get in your way...

Maybe Bernie is the herald of a generational change in your politics. I certainly hope so. I'm haunted by the possibility of history repeating itself as farce. The last time we elected a Trudeau in Canada, you got Nixon.

Running on single payer health care might be the only strategy that could end with Trump in the White House. I find it hard to believe that Hillary could or would let down - and even damage - the left to the extent that Obama did.

That's just risible Baden. Let's review Jill Stein's electoral record:
"She received 456,169 votes for 0.36% in the election,[45] making her the most successful female presidential candidate in U.S. history.[46] Stein received over 1% of the popular vote in three states: 1.3% in Maine, 1.1% in Oregon, and 1.0% in Alaska." Okay, let's not.

As for Tiff, she gets her marching orders from the NRA.

Discipline? Bernie's troops are the Occupy crowd, they suffer from a kind of affluenza. Americans aren't ready for real progressivism, let alone socialism. But there's a world of difference between Hillary and a neo-fascist buffoon like Trump.

Hillary hate is misogyny, pure and simple: http://globalcomment.com/hating-hillary-the-one-thing-left-and-right-men-can-agree-on/ .

I think they were both initiated by Hobbes mcdoodle. While the Koch brothers may not have read Hobbes, I'm sure they would find his thinking congenial to them.

Yes, but I wasn't really focusing on that example so much as turning it to thinking of conscience as a kind of self-coercion that is intricated in the very notion of self.

My eyes glaze over when fables such as "state of nature" and "social contract" are brought into play. Power circulates anonymously behind us and through us. The rich finance the discussion of taxation as coercion because despite all of their resources for avoiding taxes they still pay some, and they don't feel a shred of social responsibility. Or - more to the point - they see themselves as "individuals" (eyes glazing over) who create wealth ex nihilo, and choose to ignore the social goods such as labour and infrastructure that enable them.

Well BC, in this case the state was the municipal government. And clearly the decision not to condition the water on switching the source - a saving of $200 a day - was at best vicious compliance by minor officials well down the food chain. Just bad luck for the Republicans. Michael Moore's partisan hyperbole at least has the merit of motivating a discussion of a problem which should be bi-partisan. Bernie and Hillary are pointing out that infrastructure spending can open up good jobs, and relatively long term ones at that. What frustrates me is that the media are giving the current Republican candidates a free pass on this.

It appears that the responsible person at the EPA's divisional office, the director Susan Hedman, resigned. Although I agree with Hillary Clinton that more investigation is warranted. As for Snyder, he's clinging to office merely to use all of the state's resources for his own defense.

True: Trump's optics are much more Mussolini than Assad. But the factions seem to be equally irreconcilable.

No surprise there Moliere, but perhaps Sanders' best hope is to influence a future Hillary administration. I don't think there's a window to turn back the clock to before Obama betrayed the left wing of the Democratic party. I find it very peculiar that Americans are fixated on the locker room talk here and not on the dangerous nature of Trump's strongman/nativist rhetoric - which seems to be unobjectionable to Cruz (who may be even more dangerous) and Rubio.

Well, Bush II precipitated a conflict throughout the middle east that will last for the next president's term(s) and beyond. Would you like to see if Trump can trump that?

Surely Trump is a sign: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

I'm waiting for the pope to weigh in on the Scalia succession.

And here I thought you were feeling the Bern BC, but it turns out you're on Cruze control!

Much like 1972 this election will be an opportunity for the U.S. to make a momentous mistake. Hillary Clinton is in the best position to exploit this situation but I'd advise that she avoid hunting and Baden, and perhaps Texas altogether.

I'm reminded of Sixt Rodriguez here, although Searching for Sugar Man - like so many documentaries today - is on many levels a lie. Certainly one could think that the significance of his life was as a symbol to the anti-apartheid movement, but he was clearly unaware of this for close to twenty years. I think we can conclude that Sixt himself - based on his songs and his life - sees his own self-worth in terms of his manual labour in the desert of Detroit. Since he has a degree in philosophy and is a powerful song-writer we shouldn't be in a rush to consider his view naïve or non-reflective.

The discrimination that I want to make here is between meaning and significance. Significance is something most of us don't need to concern ourselves with. One of the nicer ironies in Sixt's story is that the South Africans invented his death in order to go on to tell the stories that are his significance.

I'm the real conservative here: I see no reason to have anything other than a monogamous model of marriage, and I think the state should intervene as little as possible. Polygamy, penalties for adultery etc. are just forms of exploitation of women.

I'm not sure I get this. Are you saying that a marriage is registered as closed or open? Does the couple register as closed or open on marriage? If so, is that election closed for all time? Does the election require mutual agreement? How would other jurisdictions be persuaded to enforce judgements? I suppose you are blissfully unaware of the impact of a criminal record on employment opportunities, something that would impair the adulterer's ability to pay settlements which already exist in most marriage breakups. If the woman is guilty and the kids stay with her does that diminish her settlement, impacting on the children's welfare? Were you on drugs when you dreamed this up?

One thing we can be sure of is that if adultery were criminal, the burden would fall disproportionately on black males. What sort of maximum punishments did you have in mind?

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino

It is interesting that beating one's children (and wife) was once considered private behaviour - as they were property - and is now generally criminal; while adultery was often considered criminal (And still is by the Taliban you so admire,), but is now considered a private matter in the West. But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law from property-owning whites who have reached the age of majority to all. As to the latter phenomenon, the history of adultery - both its definitions and punishments - is extremely complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery .

More irrational posts. The only relevant question is whether Canadians believe that adultery should be criminalized. I'm not aware of any polling data, but I've never heard or read this opinion from a single Canadian. Canadians do consistently rank adultery as one of the two most serious moral issues in polling. It seems that we are capable of making a distinction between an immoral act and a criminal act.

In Canada, we're bringing in the refugees, 25,000 by the end of February. We're also supporting the Kurdish militias in Iraq who - as I understand it - are driving ISIL out of territory that is nominally under Kurdish control. This seems reasonable to me. This is a situation where it pays to be a relatively minor military power, because the big picture is so muddled. The biggest problems for the American-led coalition seem to be in finding non-radicalized Sunni militias to fight for and occupy Sunni territories in both Iraq and Syria, the Russian/Iran/Hezbollah/Shia militia alliance supporting Assad, and the double-dealing Turks.

I have to chuckle at Hillary's idea of a no-fly zone; is she ready for a confrontation with the Russians? The U.S. refusal to take refugees is shameful.

The freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority - which goes far beyond an expectation of privacy - is considered by some scholars (rightly I think) to be part and parcel to secularism. Our current PM's father stated it succinctly "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.".

What is clear to me is that we Canadians make no such distinction, nor is adultery simpliciter any longer illegal in Canada or the U.S.. According to your precepts from your incoherent political thread you should respect our tolerance for adultery in Canada and buzz off. Or you can follow Donald Trump's lead and censor the internet in the U.S..