And you believe you can go gently into that night, a good one even, with no regrets, no desire to continue to be alive? — baker

I think I’ll face it as inevitable, but it’s likely I’ll want to keep living. As for regrets— there are many, naturally.

To paraphrase Genghis Khan, the greatest happiness is scatter your enemies and drive them before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes and his loved ones shrouded in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters. — James Riley

I thought that was Conan the Barbarian. :lol:

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean.
— Xtrix

That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. — Tzeentch

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism, of course — with better propaganda; propaganda that tells people (like you) that the government should be small and that this means freedom. Small for the population, that is— not for business. The state should be a corporate welfare state— and that’s what we have. Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you, naturally. All why decrying “socialism” and “big government.” It’s always quite a sight.

And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? — ssu

It’s not that globalization doesn’t exist. Globalization in itself is not neoliberalism.

The national engine was the financialization of the economy. It’s the most mobile of industries.

Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous. — ssu

What they call “trade,” for example in NAFTA, is a complete disaster for the economy.

What’s made the world more “prosperous” is the millions of people that have come out of poverty in China and within the Asian tigers. Odd that we’d attribute that to neoliberal capitalism. Looks like it involved massive state intervention to me.

It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" — ssu

It’s not a myth, it’s a very real set of policies systematically implemented over 40 years. It begins with Pinochet, Reagan, and Thatcher — that doesn’t mean there’s a “cabal” out there. This isn’t a conspiracy theory.

How can death be sleep when sleep is part of being alive? — The Opposite

I didn’t say death was sleep. Death can be thought to be like a dreamless sleep. The difference being you don’t wake up. Or picture it as a state of pre-birth.

You first.

Anyone want to play a game on chess.com?

I think we fear pain and the unknown. But if death doesn’t involve pain, and it’s not seen as anything more than a state of pre-birth- or dreamless sleep- then there’s little to concern oneself with.

Better late than never. Again, I'm no expert in the Federal Reserve, but I think what I presented is the general outline.

Speaking of progress, as I remember it, the lilly-livered left ran from the honorable term "liberal" when Newt, Limbaugh, and crew spit it out like a dirty word. — James Riley

This country leans conservative, beyond a doubt. It's our puritanical heritage. NOS is just confused because neoliberalism contains the word "liberal." Yet he's a neoliberal himself, being in favor of the deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts that it involves -- all under the guise of shrinking "big government," of course.

It's a great trick. Lewis Powell goes over the plan pretty well.

I agree that what we see depends on us just as it depends on what is there; seeing is interactive. Animals also presumably see things as things (but not self-reflectively, since they have no language). I just think 'interpretation' is a problematic term to use in this context because it suggests a voluntary act that is somewhat arbitrary and could have been otherwise. — Janus

That's fine, but recall I said at the beginning that I was not using "interpreting" in this sense -- namely in the dictionary sense. I think perception is better to, but can't always be employed as well.

What definition are you employing, then? If you define "interpreting" as "seeing" — Ciceronianus

Perception.

What we see, do and think is a result of our interaction with the rest of the world. Sometimes we interpret when interacting; sometimes we don't. — Ciceronianus

We're always perceiving and, thus, we're always interpreting.

When I see a radish, I see just what a human being with (relatively) normal eyesight would see. If I was colorblind, I would see just what a human being who was colorblind would see. If I see a radish at sunup I'd see what a human being would see on looking at a radish at sunup; if I see it at sundown I'd see what a human being would see then. This isn't my interpretation of a radish, however. — Ciceronianus

It's your perception of the radish, which is interpreting.

A bird looking at a radish isn't engaged in interpretation. Neither are we. — Ciceronianus

A bird is interpreting sense data as well, as we are. This happens automatically.

Of course we see a glass with liquid in it as a glass with liquid in it, but that is not an interpretation, it is an example of a basic understanding that is shared by all. — Janus

It's a perception, and perception is a kind of interpreting. All perception. again I think Kant is good here and I'm basically repeating him.

This is only controversial if one takes interpreting to mean "uncertain" or "opinion." Of course there's a glass there, and a chair and a tree and the color red. But all of that is also partly subject-dependent.

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years
— Xtrix
Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. — ssu

That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization.

Democrats Campaigned Against The GOP Tax Law But Are Barely Touching It

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), one of the main authors of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, estimated that 95% of the law would remain intact. The 5% of the 2017 law that Democrats are changing encompasses the SALT deduction and changes to the ways corporations are taxed on income earned overseas.

:100:

Imagine this came from Truman. That communist.

In fact, any word that few know but that sounds sassy and clever. — ssu

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years and that isn't restricted to one party. The policies are de-regulation, cutting taxes, privatization. Nothing sassy or clever about it.

Neoliberalism real fascism? That's too thick. (And how Reaganite were Clinton and Obama?) — ssu

Clinton and Obama were neoliberals as well, yes.

Fascism is just a meaningless derogatory adjective then. There with communism (for some). — ssu

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism (and capitalism) get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean.

When we way "all is interpretation" we misuse "interpret" and "interpretation" as they're defined in dictionaries and ordinary use. — Ciceronianus

All the better.

We do none of those things when we see something; we simply do what people with sight do--that is to say, see as human beings do. — Ciceronianus

Perception is a kind of interpreting.

"We tend to think that what we see just depends on what's 'out there,' but the more one studies vision either as a scientist or as a painter, one discovers that what's called vision involves an enormous amount of interpretation. The color we see as red is not the same color in terms of wavelengths at different times of the day. So in even in what we think of as our simplest interaction with the world, just looking at it, we're interpreting." (Hilary Putnam)

There's typically no thought involved. — Ciceronianus

Right, there isn't.

To say I'm interpreting when I see a radish implies something about seeing which makes it a matter of dispute. — Ciceronianus

Not really. It's not a question of whether anything exists "out there" or not, but that -- as Kant points out -- we're perceiving things, and perception has its own forms.

It seems a way of assuring that all day to day living is considered uncertain or questionable, which I suppose is pleasing to some. — Ciceronianus

That's exactly wrong. This is only the case is one is ensconced in epistemology. This great fear of the "uncertain" creeps in, but that's not important here. What I'm pointing out is trivial. I'm not using the dictionary version of "interpreting," which is similar to saying "it's just your opinion." It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of perception. We all perceive, and so we all interpret. A glass being half full or empty is also an interpretation -- it doesn't mean there's no glass there.

This guy hasn't a clue about fascism. He thought neoliberalism was "liberal." Better just to satirize and laugh.

Neo-fascists who worshipped Trump love to talk about fascists.Trump and Mussolini share a lot in common.

Fascists hated liberalism. — NOS4A2

Yet they liked the New Deal and Keynes -- all liberal policies. Neoliberalism isn't "liberal."

Talk about swing and a miss...no substance whatsoever, only slogans and quotations. Per usual.

Mussolini loved the New Deal and Keynesianism. — NOS4A2

So he loved the policies and programs that dominated the "Golden Age of Capitalism"? Greatest growth in the 20th century. Etc.

Compare to the last 40 years of neoliberal Reaganite policies. You'll find the real fascism there.

"The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)"

"The Nazi 25-point Programme," — NOS4A2

:rofl:

The common good = Hitler. Got it. Another air-tight argument.

All we can do is pay attention to the little things around us. Help a homeless person. Bring a meal to a sick person. Let the world do whatever it's going to do. — frank

Bullshit.

look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do. — I like sushi

Yes, I think it’s appropriate to disdain those who have considerably more because of slave labor and cheating.

Read most of that too. Great stuff.

For real? — frank

Yes. Harvey's great. Worth checking out his Anti-capitalist Chronicles, as well.

The epiphany I've just had is that I should just give up. Screw it. I'll make up a new word. Here's some ideas:

[1] Potrzebics
[2] Stuff n' things
[3] Collingwood's metaphysics (C-metaphysics)
[4] Craptastics
[5] Rigamarole

I think I'll use number 3. — T Clark

Sounds good.

Where they came from:. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey — frank

Already read it. Time to find a new book.

there's no technical notion of metaphysics.
— Xtrix

I don't think that's true, unless I misunderstand what you mean by "technical." Collingwood's definition fits the bill:

Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or groups of persons, on this or that occasion or groups of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking. — T Clark

That's the one you like the most, but doesn't make it a technical notion. I think you did misunderstand. I mean by "technical notion" those used in the sciences -- like "energy," "work," etc. These notions are given a meaning in the context of a theory. Metaphysics can be defined any way we want. There are some common themes running through the various ways it is described; it's a fairly amorphous term.

But what is the goal here? To arrive at a definitive meaning of "metaphysics"? How will we know when we arrive there? Seems to me on par with trying to find the world's longest sentence -- as soon as you get there, you can also add a word.

But C-metaphysics seems to be nothing more than discussing various assumptions people make or hold. That's certainly worthy of discussion, yes. That seems different than wanting to determine the meaning of metaphysics.

It seems to me that in terms of values, morality, psychologically, the 1% are actually similar or even the same as the middle class people. What makes the difference is that the 1% are operating within an entirely different socioeconomic context, which makes for vastly different results. — baker

That may very well be true. I'm more inclined to think that the context/conditions in which they live influences their attitudes, beliefs, and values as well -- in ways that are similar to different educational outcomes, or even health. So things like a belief in meritocracy, since it is very self-serving ("I am where I am because I deserve it/earned it"), or the usefulness of those at the very top ("they create jobs and innovate") is probably more deeply embedded than in lower classes.

For example, Bill Gates' father wrote a book, Showing Up for Life: Thoughts on the Gifts of a Lifetime. In terms of morality and psychology, it's nothing special, it's middle class mentality. — baker

Seems like he grew up middle-class, so that's not a huge surprise. I wonder if someone like Paris Hilton or members of the Walton family believe similar things. Who knows. One thing seems clear enough: they're all capitalists at heart. That seems to be the church they all belong to, with varying splits and denominations.

Let’s talk first about money—even if money is only one part of what makes the new aristocrats special. There is a familiar story about rising inequality in the United States, and its stock characters are well known. The villains are the fossil-fueled plutocrat, the Wall Street fat cat, the callow tech bro, and the rest of the so-called top 1 percent. The good guys are the 99 percent, otherwise known as “the people” or “the middle class.” The arc of the narrative is simple: Once we were equal, but now we are divided. The story has a grain of truth to it. But it gets the characters and the plot wrong in basic way.

It is in fact the top 0.1 percent who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth over the past half century. According to the UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the 160,000 or so households in that group held 22 percent of America’s wealth in 2012, up from 10 percent in 1963. If you’re looking for the kind of money that can buy elections, you’ll find it inside the top 0.1 percent alone.

Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose.

In between the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent is a group that has been doing just fine. It has held on to its share of a growing pie decade after decade. And as a group, it owns substantially more wealth than do the other two combined. In the tale of three classes (see Figure 1), it is represented by the gold line floating high and steady while the other two duke it out. You’ll find the new aristocracy there. We are the 9.9 percent.

The New American Aristocracy

Just found this article. An old thread, but relevant to the OP.

The point of this thread is to discuss the meaning of the word "metaphysics" — T Clark

So far as I can see, there's no technical notion of metaphysics. You're aware of its humble etymological beginnings in Aristotle. You ask any person and they can give you a slightly different answer. I tend to think of metaphysics as, at heart, the study of beings -- which several definitions you mentioned also include. Pretty general.

But meta ta physika is the meaning of the word: after the physics. The end. What's next?

there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it — T Clark

I reject both of these, because I think the "subject/object" distinction, though very old, is not very useful. So I guess that rules me out of discussion.

The best remarks on the topic, in my view, are from Introduction to Metaphysics, by Heidegger. If you really want something to challenge you, that's worth looking at.

6 democrats voted against the bill. Kudos to them for standing their ground.

Divided Democrats Lurch Toward Vote on $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

Looks like the progressives will cave. No surprise. Oops, I mean I'm very surprised -- only Streetlight truly gets it.

Just more proof that voting against Trump was a stupid choice. :gasp:

only to have fresh new reasons why, nonetheless, they must be supported. — StreetlightX

If only Trump were in office...a conservative Supreme Court for 40 years wasn't quite damaging enough. Clinton's picks would have probably been just as bad though...

Eh, it's just typical angry, immature internet drivel. I'm just having fun and so's he I'm sure. Who gives a shit.

Well he's read Dan Everett, so there goes Chomsky!

Yes, we know your position -- we're going off the cliff either way, so stay home, don't vote. :ok: