I've read Being in Time twice through, but certain parts many times. Be happy to talk about it.

See this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12109/what-is-being/p1

And this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8492/martin-heidegger/p1

And let me know what you think, if interested.

Of course if Trump loses to a Democrat then there would be a 180 degree turn around and Trumpsters would accuse Democratic leaders of wrong doing by doing the very thing that Trump has set out to do. — Fooloso4

That’s just about 100% certain, yes.

Simply by running he effectively throws up a smoke screen of "the charges are all political" no matter what they are or who they come from or what their merits are. — GRWelsh

It’s fairly obvious this is one big reason. Trump is easy to predict.

Just for posterity / reference:

The major Supreme Court cases of 2022-2023:

• Students for Fair Admissions v. Havard
  Affirmative action case. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Moore v. Harper
  "independent state legislature" theory and gerrymandering. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Biden v. Nebraska
  Student loan forgiveness. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• 303 Creative v. Elenis
  Gay rights. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Allen v. Milligan
  Alabama voting rights. Decided 5-4.
  
  
• Glacier Northeast v. Teamsters
  Unions and strikes. Decided 8-1.
  
  
• Sackett v. EPA
  Re: waters of the US with "continuous surface connection." Decided 9-0, but 5-4 on rationale.

Not surprising, most were terrible.

But conservatives bringing up Hunter Biden or Hilary Clinton and any alleged wrongdoing they were involved in doesn't exonerate Trump from anything he was indicted for. — GRWelsh

True, but it’s so fun to watch! So let’s not spell out the stupidity too much.

They’re all plutocratic criminals that get special treatment. That being said, Trump is in a league of his own.

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather. — LuckyR

Yes, true.

But because it’s all felt locally, my hope (which is borne out with some polling) is that extreme weather will be connected to climate change.

Always worth remembering the facts: Trump tried to overthrow a fair election. He continues to lie about it. His lies led to an insurrection.

He should have been hung for treason years ago.

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, — LuckyR

Not the ones we’re seeing now, which are both felt locally and exacerbated by global trends.

It’s not either/or.

Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? — BC

Mass existential. Easy to see why, even with adaptation.

Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard. — LuckyR

Half true. What you see and feel in your backyard is also related to the broader global changes. If you're in a draught, or caught in wildfires or a flood, or have your community uprooted by a hurricane -- that is all weather-related, yes, but also climate related. A warmer climate produces more floods, more draughts, more intense wildfires and stronger hurricanes. So while one hot day or one cold day in town X doesn't prove anything about global temperature, frequently extreme events are also not an accident, given what we know about climate change.

Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change? — BC

A good source is this article from Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#core-collateral-purchase-access

There are several potential tipping points, and it's very possible we'll set them off. If so, life as we know it is over. Maybe we adapt in some way, but it's an existential risk.

Weighing blame...? — jorndoe

Yes. I tend to weigh the contributions of the country I live in more heavily— as is should be for anyone of rational age.

More than one topic I guess. — jorndoe

:up:

I think you’re right. Incidentally, the oft-referenced dissenter John Mearsheimer is equally pessimistic:

is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated. Given maximalist objectives all around, it is almost impossible to reach a workable peace treaty. Moreover, the two sides have irreconcilable differences regarding territory and Ukraine’s relationship with the West. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict that could easily turn back into a hot war. The worst possible outcome is a nuclear war, which is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.

Depends on who you ask. According to the US, Russia shows no interest in negotiating, despite what Putin has publicly stated. Others say the US hasn’t seriously engaged in negotiations.

My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war.

Of course, Trump recently mentioned that he could solve this issue in “one day” by threatening to give Ukraine “a lot” and by telling Zelensky to “stop it.” So I guess there’s hope.

I know Zelensky very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we are going to give him [Zelensky] a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day.

The US provocation of this war is clear to anyone willing to look at the record, particularly 2008. Their military support is good for the powerful arms industry, and there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations.

None of this should be controversial— except that it gets heard as “Putin is blameless.”

I think it should be legal, but would love to see a society where women aren’t essentially forced to do this kind of work.

People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.

Emerson, I think. I like this one.

But after the lawsuits were thrown out, it was time to move on and concede for the good of the country. — GRWelsh

Anyone with a brain cell knew Trump would claim the election was stolen if he lost. He would have done so in 2016. He did so in Iowa that year when Cruz won the caucus. It was foregone.

He’s been lying about a stolen election for years, and the reality is that he tried his best to steal it himself. The Georgia “perfect call” is a good taste, not to mention what he did to Pence. To say nothing of deliberately inciting an insurrection, using his followers to throw a tantrum for him.

Contested the election on what grounds? — GRWelsh

Oh I’m sure they’ll come up with something — like the fact that during a pandemic, mail-in voting (which has been around for decades) was expanded. In 2016 it would have been that buses of immigrants were given the right to vote in California, etc. etc. In other words: when we lose, it’s rigged by the deep state (despite plenty of split voting), because there’s no way Trump is hated by so many Americans — and when we win, nothing to see. We will in fact rail against the Russia narrative, which at least was based in reality and was shown to be true, despite the fact that the interference did not swing the election to Trump.

Years later, they sound exactly like what they accused the Democrats of sounding like. It’s hilarious.

The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future. — Art48

Of course they do. Where else do they exist?

Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God. — Art48

Thinking does that, yes — it can take you out of paying attention to what you are currently doing or feeling. But it’s still reality. Not sure where “God” comes into the picture.

Who’s doing the interpreting about this life? You.

What values, beliefs, conditioning, habits are you bringing to the table before you cast a judgment on what is a failure and what isn’t? What standard are you using?

Seems to me you’re stuck in the idea that you haven’t achieved xyz — fame, fortune, or whatever your parents want from you. There are ways to be happy (healthy) apart from all that. Try meditating and exercising regularly— what’s there to lose?

I also think you need therapy. One striking thing is lack of connection with others, which is an extremely important component to a happy life.

seeking some therapy from TPF members. That's fine, but you don't follow up. You get plenty of encouraging and thoughtful responses but you rarely respond to any of them. — universeness

As was the case for this thread too.

Almost a year has passed since the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which estimates gross domestic product, announced that real G.D.P. had declined over the previous two quarters — a phenomenon that is widely, although incorrectly, described as the official definition of a recession.

Right-wingers had a field day, crowing about the “Biden recession.” But it wasn’t just a partisan thing. Even forecasters who knew that recessions are defined by multiple indicators, and that America wasn’t in a recession yet, began predicting one in the near future. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics, one of the few prominent recession skeptics, put it: “Every person on TV says recession. Every economist says recession. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

By late 2022, members of the Federal Reserve committee that sets monetary policy were predicting an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent by late 2023; private forecasters were predicting 4.4 percent. Either of these forecasts would have implied at least a mild recession.

To be fair, we don’t know for sure that these predictions will be falsified. But with unemployment in June just 3.6 percent, the same as it was a year ago, and job growth still chugging away, the economy would have to fall off a steep cliff very soon to make them right, and there’s little hint in the data of that happening. — Paul Krugman

A few people were screaming about a recession on this very thread. Between that and the constant blather about how we’re “printing too much money,” I think it’s time to simply face the fact that most people don’t have a clue about what they’re talking about, and that the proper action is to ignore them.

There are many factors of inflation— supply chain disruptions, post Covid demand, war, corporate price gouging, monetary policy artificially inflating the three major asset classes, etc.

Now that there’s been no recession and inflation is under control, the new boogeyman will be the national debt, which Republicans suddenly care about again and which therefore all of us are supposed to be scared shitless about.

It never ends.

The fact is that Biden, for all his flaws, has been far more progressive than Obama— and while he’s made maddening decisions on labor and environment, his administration has made attempts to do sensible things in education, regulations, etc— at the SEC, EPA, the NLRB, etc. even saying nice things and appointing good people is a positive message for the country and world.

CPI Report Shows Inflation Eased to 3% in June

https://www.wsj.com/articles/consumer-price-index-report-june-inflation-ede7f4b1?mod=mhp


Interesting.

Hottest global average in 100,000 years.

Anyone see the CNN decades series? They did the 60s through 2000s back in 2014-2018. They just wrapped up “2010s.” I like these series— kind of fun. Good editing and production. About to watch some of these

In my life, by the Beatles.

That sounds like denying there is a territory being mapped by our minds/brains — wonderer1

Right. There is no territory being mapped by our brains. There’s no “out there” that begins where our skin and eyes end. There are things happening, there are sensations present, and a whole lot of interpreting. Most of which is completely unconscious and transparent.

Throw out the subject/object and correspondence stuff and you start getting closer to what’s “real,” in my view.

It's funny how this principle works to prevent regulation of companies, but somehow doesn't do the same for women's pregnant bodies, for example. In practice it always seems to protect companies, and never seems to protect individual humans at all. — unenlightened

Bingo. :100:

So, I am asking, how do you see the 'self' as coexisting as subject and object? — Jack Cummins

Both are constructs of a thinking mind— and not the ordinary kind of thinking. Dates back to Descartes and is adopted and further developed by Kant and others.

No need to take the distinction too seriously. It’s not how we see ourselves most of the time anyway.

Some interesting and encouraging news:

If goals set under the Paris Agreement are met, the world may hold warming well below 2°C (1); however, parties are not on track to deliver these commitments (2), increasing focus on policy implementation to close the gap between ambition and action. Recently, the US government passed its most prominent piece of climate legislation to date—the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)—designed to invest in a wide range of programs that, among other provisions, incentivize clean energy and carbon management, encourage electrification and efficiency measures, reduce methane emissions, promote domestic supply chains, and address environmental justice concerns (3). IRA’s scope and complexity make modeling important to understand impacts on emissions and energy systems. We leverage results from nine independent, state-of-the-art models to examine potential implications of key IRA provisions, showing economy-wide emissions reductions between 43 and 48% below 2005 levels by 2035.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg3781

It’s a start.

What are you talking about?

Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me). — 180 Proof

True…no doubt it’ll tighten up as time goes by. Always does. Nominating Trump is probably a mistake, but I can’t underestimate the electorate’s ability to do silly things.

Cornel West is running as a Green Party candidate.

I like Cornel West very much. I think more serious parties is a good idea and would be an improvement in our two party system.

On the other hand, third party votes in swing states are a waste and, essentially, a de facto vote for one’s least preferred candidate. That’s simple arithmetic, so it’s always puzzled me why some people push for not voting given the importance of the election in a country like the US, where even small differences between parties make a big difference in the world.

However, I’m trying to give the idea more weight. Chris Hedges, a person I admire and have much to learn from, seems to advocate for this position. He’s helping Cornel West. He seems to believe that the only way out of this cycle is to make the Democratic Party afraid, to the point where there’s real reforms.

I need to think more about it, but it still seems to me misguided.

due to a significamt "leftward" shift in support by Independents — 180 Proof

Not seeing that leftward shift in independents yet.

Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile. — jgill

That’s nice. Unfortunately I prefer going by polling, not personal feelings. It’s also worth remembering about half of Americans have no access to public transit. They’re not even given the option. Of the transit that does exist, it’s been systematically defunded over the years and next to comparable countries is a laughingstock. Which isn’t an accident.

I guess we can choose to believe it’s somehow human nature that everyone wants a car, but when looking at the history it’s just not true. It’s been manufactured, like many other things in American life and which the OP touches on.

Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. — Hanover

Both can occur. But I was responding to the OP, which includes the following:

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. This has led to a devastating opioid crisis in many parts of the world, with severe consequences for individuals and communities. — Judaka

I'm not sure about how badly people want a public option for health insurance, but it certainly sounds like exaggeration to claim most people want efficient public transit. — BC

68% want a public option; about 65% + favor public transit. Not hard to see why.

Next year: Supreme Court declares class has no impact on one’s opportunities in life, thus making it so.

Yeah, the same reason women film directors are so rare: just not talented enough. It’s all merit based. Remember: racism and sexism have been declared over in America.

So 4 black CEOs? Has nothing to do with racism. There just happens to not be enough black people that boards of old white guys find talented enough. Nothing to see here.

Really good OP, in my view. Kudos.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism? — Judaka

To me it’s less about freedom to choose as it is about what’s presented for choices.

We’re “free to choose” between a Honda, a Ford, a Chevy, etc. We’re free to choose Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, Cigna, etc. That’s supposed to be proof of the benefits of capitalism. Ditto Republicans and Democrats for that matter.

Very little talk about what most people really want: efficient public transit, a public option for health insurance, etc.

So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options we’ve decided and a couple buttons to push. That’s freedom and democracy. At least it’s not that great evil, communism.