I'm concerned about trying to provide a means for educational games for young people that aren't that resource intensive on processing power of a computer. I used to play some games like that, that made school, where I couldn't pay attention no matter how hard I tried, an easy venture. It's very hard for me to explain just how difficult school would have been if I didn't play those educational games that provided the core concepts distilled and entertaining to learn whilst interactive. — Shawn

Seems like a noble pursuit. If you're worth 10s of billions, which is an outrageous sum, you could invest 0.001% of it in a new company that specializes in exactly this and be well ahead of Khan Academy or any other similar institution.

The question is how much you want to give away, really. How much is enough to live the rest of your life (and your family/friends' lives) comfortably enough? 1 billion? 100 million? 50 million? Once you figure that out, the rest is just numbers -- then you can invest into a multitude of projects. I'd take a look at this thread here for some ideas.

Education is certainly a major issue. I'm glad to hear you're interested in it. Climate change is another, and one that I tend to focus on -- seems to overshadow everything else, since nothing else will matter if the environment is destroyed. On that issue there are plenty of organizations doing excellent work. There are indigenous tribes in the Amazon rainforest who risk their lives stopping its destruction that are certainly worth donating to, etc. You could be a hero to these people just based on your wealth alone.

You're only the second billionaire I've spoken with in my life, incidentally. (That I'm aware of.)

Yes, I am a billionaire. — Shawn

Well that's interesting. You're in a rare club indeed.

I can only tell you what I would do if I had that money. But you've got to figure that out yourself. What is it that you care about? Do you care about humanity or not? What is a good life?

It really shouldn't change you much, it's just numbers on a screen. But knowing nothing else about you, those numbers give you far more opportunities than the average person -- hopefully to do some good.

The pharmaceuticals have, in the space of just over a year, managed to take public funds and turn them into private patents that they've sold to over 80% of the population of the western world. — Isaac

Governments have paid them for their vaccines. Most vaccines being offered are free. So this can be misleading. But should governments be paying private corporations for potentially life-saving medicine? I don't think so -- but that's a different story.

New legislation is being passed which will make it harder for people to report on corporate malfeasance, and the left-wing has voluntarily gagged themselves from complaining about any wrongdoing for fear of undermining confidence in their products. — Isaac

If that's in fact the case, I'm against it. I also think there should not be patent protection in this case. Whatever wrongdoing you're referring to, I don't know. I know the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was linked with blood clots and something like 10 people died out of millions...I don't see that being suppressed, really. But if there is some wrongdoing I'm unaware of, that's been suppressed for fear of undermining confidence, I'd certainly take a look.

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.

Meanwhile, some nutjobs think the vaccine will turn them into a 5G transmitter because some Facebook page told them so.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the latter is super important whilst the former is just old hat that there's not much point talking about. — Isaac

I don't think that.

The latter is a symptom of a bigger problem, part of which you've mentioned. Another symptom is the election fraud claim. You can mock both as just some "nut jobs," and perhaps in other decades you'd be correct. When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.

So you've come onto a thread about Coronavirus, just to point out the general fact that lots of people are irrational. — Isaac

Apropos of the article I cited, yes. Just one more symptom (an important one) of a much wider problem of irrationality. The article talks about a potential solution of “incentives,” which I was leery about.

I think that’s an interesting discussion, yes. Because there’s little else to say about coronavirus or the vaccines, despite you wanting to relitigate this over and over again.

thinly veiled attempt to get another "aren't non-vaxxers stupid" comment in by putting it in a new dress. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this is exactly what triggered you, essentially being one yourself. But don’t worry, it wasn’t directed at you. I also should have said “irrational,” not “stupid.” My bad.

This is a debating platform, if you're not prepared to debate, you're in the wrong place. — Isaac

Thanks for the tip. Funny thing with me, though: I like to argue for my positions, not positions people think I hold. I also don’t debate truisms. If one wants to debate about the earth being flat, they’re welcome.

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it.
— Xtrix

No, it means your point is flawed. — Isaac

No, you mean your point is flawed. Because it’s your point you’re arguing against, not mine. Perhaps it is flawed — but I’m not involved.

Corporate media may well be responsible for 'irrational thinking' but vaccine hesitancy is a terrible example of it because all it shows is that people do not follow corporate media. — Isaac

Fox News is corporate media. Most talk radio is corporate media. They try to walk a thin line — as you do — about vaccines, but they know they’re audience. Remember Trump was booed about the vaccines?

But yes, generally these people no longer even follow Trump or Fox about vaccinations. That’s why I mentioned, repeatedly, that they’ve created a monster they can no longer control. I also said, crucially, that social media is what’s driving a lot of this irrationality. True, they’re owned by major corporations who “try” to regulate the spread of misinformation (Facebook, Google) — but they too have created a monster they can no longer control.

The contradiction you’re looking for just doesn’t exist. If you want to truly debate what I’m saying, then challenge the claim. That would mean challenging whether corporate media really did create this monster in the first place. Maybe other factors are more relevant — education, economic conditions, etc.

That at least would be interesting, and perhaps I could learn something. What you’re doing is just misrepresentation. That’s boring.

You made the claim that an 'overwhelming majority' of scientists supported your position. I just want to know where you got the numbers from, that's all — Isaac

Well I don’t know if there’s a poll asking doctors “do you think the vaccines are safe and effective?”, and I’m not interested in even googling it, so I guess you got me. I have no numbers. I did read somewhere that something like 98% of physicians received the vaccine — but otherwise I suppose I’m going by literally any credible scientific or medical source I’ve read. Or any credible organization, for that matter (I include the WHO, CDC, AMA, etc).

So no, I have no poll and no exact numbers. Maybe a sizeable percentage don’t believe germs exist. I’ve yet to see a poll, so I guess we can’t be sure.

It does seem like that’s what the system is based on, ultimately: the accumulation of wealth. More and more profits, more and more money. And why? What’s the point in spending your time collecting coins and paper?

Because it can buy you control and influence, not to mention lots of material goods. It can buy food, women, houses, cars, clothes, jewelry, TVs, etc. All the things we’re supposed to covet.

A certain amount of material goods, and of wealth, is fine. I agree with Aristotle in that case. But when it’s the central need on which you base your sociocultural system, you’re heading for disaster.

No you weren't. — Isaac

No it wasn't. — Isaac

:yawn:

I quoted myself. But believe what you wish.

Apparently the one group who stand to gain billions from everyone taking the vaccine are actively discouraging people from taking the vaccine — Isaac

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it. Incredible how warped your perception has become in your bizarre obsession. Oh well.

No, it was definitely one scientist. — Isaac

No, it’s thousands of scientists. I quoted one. My quoting one does not mean there is only one who agrees vaccines are safe and effective, which was the point — nor about misinformation, which was my initial point. But keep trying.

So you stand by every word of an article bemoaning the fact that some (eligible) people haven't taken the vaccine, but it's not your position that everybody (eligible) should take the vaccine...? — Isaac

I stand by every word of mine. The article, which was a launching point for what I wrote, does not advocate “everyone” that’s eligible take the vaccine, and in fact makes the obvious qualification — which you seem so eager to point out.

I’ll make it easier so as not to hurt your ego: Some people are refusing the vaccine for irrational reasons. Many, in fact. This is what I’m talking about, what the article was talking about (incentives), and what the scientist I quoted was talking about. Some have legitimate reasons — which is all you seem to care about.

Heaven forbid we don’t always acknowledge what should be obvious — we may be accused of thinking that “everyone,” without exception, should be forced to take the product of Big Pharma.

Sorry you took it all so personally. May your pet project of deep-diving all things vaccine continue unabated.

Some people think a silly thing about a medicine - that's where all our focus should be. — Isaac

Not all our focus— but it’s a symptom of a major problem. A problem which, believe it or not, relates to the other issues you rattled off. Despite what you misperceive, this was the point.

I absolutely do not concede that. I suspect that if Heidegger had continued with the work, the next publication would not have been called Being and Time with any sort of suffix and would likely have been called Time and Being. — Arne

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with accurately calling the introduction an introduction. Come on man.

Heidegger published what he needed to publish to get what he wanted to get. Had he not been forced to publish and under hurried circumstances, we would not even know his name. It is sloppy and students of Heidegger deserve better. — Arne

He was a pretty big deal even prior to publishing this book, so that claim is at best speculative. But yes, I agree it was written in haste.

I read Heidegger and then I listen to lectures by Dreyfus, Kelly, or Carmen and then I read Heidegger and then I listen to lectures by Dreyfus, Kelly, or Carmen and then I read Heidegger. . . — Arne

That was me for two years. Minus Carmen. Mostly I just read Heidegger. Dreyfus is extremely helpful and I love his lectures.

Are you trying to say you’re a billionaire? Or is this just to make a point?

Regarding the last part: it’s an interesting question. Like sex, money isn’t often discussed among many “famous” philosophers.

With regards to philosophy, try to use your wealth to help change the world for the better. Plenty of good people and good organizations to support.

And besides, if you agreed with me, then all you had to do was say so and we could have been doing other things. — Arne

I would have, but I don't agree with the statement about the introduction. It is not a mistake to refer to it as such. I hope you now concede that.

You're quite right that to refer to Being and Time as a completed work is incorrect.

We are clearly not going to agree. I find The History of the Concept of Time (pre) and The Problems of Phenomenology (post) to be useful in understanding Being and Time. — Arne

Well we agree on that at least. :ok:

And even if you want to stand on that, people who wish to understand Being and Time should still be aware that what is labeled as an introduction is clearly intended to be an introduction to a larger body of work. Surely you can see that? — Arne

Of course. But who doesn't see that? Is anyone out there thinking that because there's an introduction to the entire outline, that therefore every part of that outline was finished? All one has to do is look at the table of contents to realize that it's an unfinished work.

I still fail to see how referring to the introduction is a mistake. Perhaps you mean to say that people really aren't aware that Being and Time is an unfinished work...in which case, perhaps you're right, but again I don't see that as a major problem. They will quickly realize it's unfinished.

Mozart left some work unfinished as well. So what?

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.
— Xtrix

Seriously? He needed to provide a name for the completed parts so they could be published (the publish or die of academia.). He named the 2 completed parts Being and Time. It really is that simple. — Arne

Not at all. The title was given to the entirety of what was proposed, which you yourself cited. He just never got around to finishing it. Which is why the introduction is so valuable -- in the introduction (really, the introductions), he goes through the entirety of the six-division proposal.

Most of Being and Time, including the divisions not finished, were eventually published in different works and were an outgrowth of lecture courses Heidegger gave in the 1920s. So both before and after 1927, you have plenty of material.

So it's not quite that simple, no.

Fair enough.

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.

I don't know what "6 part project" you're referring to. Perhaps you can clarify.

Your "emphatically" insisting that he provides no definition of being is incorrect. — Arne

I'm not emphatically insisting, Heidegger emphatically insists.

He defines being as ". . . that on the basis of which entities are already understood." (M&R at 25-26, 6 in the German.). I am always surprised by the number of people who miss that. — Arne

I'm well aware of that line. It's also ironic that you mis-quoted it.

I wouldn't myself say that's a definition -- it's a one-time instance where he's trying to communicate how being gets interpreted: namely, as the basis for which beings are already understood. Later, he describes this as a pre-ontological understanding of being.

But let's assume you're correct, and this is his definition. Odd that a book about the question of the meaning of being only has one line about its meaning. What I described seems more probable.

The below is from the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. — Arne

It's not a mistake to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as "the introduction to Being and Time." Because it IS the introduction to Being and Time. Whatever "six-part project" you're referring to, again I have no idea. I think it more likely you're confusing the proposed six divisions with "six parts." Being and Time was to have 2 parts consisting of six divisions. Where are you getting parts 3-6?

As you can see, the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time makes clear the introduction is to a 6 division project of which Being and Time comprises only the first 2 divisions. Surely you can see that. — Arne

Yes, can you?

So now you say it's six divisions. Before you said six "parts." So let's be clear about that, first. That's not me merely nit-picking; it's absolutely essential.

You're quite right: Being and Time, as we currently have it, consists of only 2 divisions of the proposed six divisions. Thus, it is incomplete. So why, then, did you say, above:

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Did you mean 6 divisions? If so, why do you say Being and Time is just "2 [divisions]" of a six-division project, but then say it's complete?

The bottom line is this:

Being and Time was proposed as a 2 Part, 6 Division work. Only 2 divisions of Part 1 was published. The introduction touches on all of it: all divisions, both parts. Look no further than the last page you provided to see that the introduction goes through all of it, including the historical destruction of Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle.

Given that this is true, my statement stands: it is in no way a "mistake" to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as exactly that. Why? Because that's exactly what it is.

I think the only "solution" is to let the whole system collapse, probably better sooner than later... and see what can grow after that. — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe...but that means enormous suffering that will be felt mostly -- as always -- by the poor and working classes. It means worldwide depression. They've gotten themselves into a game where they're now "too big to fail," and so the government serves as a backstop for them, preventing them from failing. On and on we go.

I'd much prefer massive legal and regulatory reforms, but that's not going to happen either. What's more is that we're really out of time. So if the entire system collapses, perhaps that's the last best hope we have?

There's always the people, of course. That's my real hope. Unfortunately millions of people are far too divided by our media bubbles, too tired from work, too sick from our lifestyles, too medicated, too drugged out, or too "amused" to know or care about the imminent catastrophe already unfolding.

Stock buybacks are happening because the ROI in them is higher than the ROI in non-financials. No need to look to ideological factors. Follow the money. It's as simple as that. — StreetlightX

Short-term return on investment, yes. The stock price goes up. But this isn't the entire story, as you know. Stock buybacks were nearly non-existent for 30+ years until after 1982. That's why I mentioned rule 10b-18 of the SEC, under Reagan-appointed John Shad. The floodgates opened after both this action and increasing stocks as a portion of CEO compensation. Whether these moves were "ideologically" driven or not is arguable, although it does appear that way to me. I think the appropriation of Friedman's doctrine (and others) served as a nice cover.

https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy

Both from Lazonick, who's done good research into this. Also a decent interview here, if you're interested:

And the resistance in the real economy is at record levels. The whole thing is being held together by the duct-tape of QE and PPP and record low interest rates. It's bleeding to death. Who in their right mind would park their money there? No sensible capitalist. — StreetlightX

Right -- it's bleeding to death yet being propped up, over and over, by the Fed. The question is what happens this year when they start tapering their buying of corporate debt to fight "inflation"? Whether the financial sector bleeds out slowly or hemorrhages seems the only two options. Unless they find Jesus, of course.

Heidegger remarking that 'if I understand Suzuki correctly, this is what I have been trying to say in all my writings'. — Wayfarer

That's interesting. Can you provide a reference?

But my all time favorite orienting mantra is being is that on the basis of which being is already understood. — Arne

It's "on the basis of which entities are already understood." That's a crucial difference.

Failing to recognize that the primary goal (revealing the meaning of being) set forth in what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time causes many to presume the primary goal of Being and Time is to reveal the meaning of being. Instead, the goal of Being and Time is much less ambitious than and "preparatory" to revealing the meaning of being. — Arne

The introduction is indeed an introduction to Being and Time. The fact that the book wasn't completed doesn't negate this. Why? Because in the introduction -- and not elsewhere, since it wasn't written -- you have a discussion of the entirety of the book. For example, what was to be the second part: the "destruction" of the history with time as a clue, in Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle; and the 3rd Division of Part 1, "Time and Being." All discussed in the introduction.

So the introduction is very valuable indeed. If you want to fill out Being and Time, then Basic Problems of Phenomenology and Introduction to Metaphysics will do so.

The primary goal of Being and Time is, indeed, about the question of the meaning of being. That is the goal. What I see as a common mistake is when people assume he gives a definition or an interpretation of "being" himself. He most emphatically does not. So that is a common error. But to argue that it's an error to think his goal is what he in fact repeatedly says it is? That itself is an error -- in my view.

Also, the word "reveal" is misleading. His goal is to work out the question of the meaning of being -- to see on what basis the question is asked and upon which any interpretation whatsoever of being is given. That, it turns out, is time -- the "structure" (or "being") of dasein. Again he cites the Greeks's parousia and ousia as examples of this in the introduction (i.e., presence assumes the present moment, and hence time).

You're right that "free markets" (notice the quotation marks), private property, capital, profits, etc., play a role in the system we're referring to, given the name "capitalism" (in today's world, state-capitalism). But I was asking you what, in practice, makes this system unique from other socioeconomic systems in history. That's why I mentioned feudalism. Were there markets under feudalism? Of course there were. Ditto with profits, property, etc.

So I mentioned the relationship of employer and employee. I think this is what stands out when we look at how things are arranged today. It's a power structure, like master-slave and lord-serf, but unique in its function. There is a "contract" involved in this relationship, where the worker/employee is hired, by the employer, to use his brains and muscles to produce goods and services. In exchange, he or she receives compensation in the form of a wage or salary. (You're not selling yourself, you're renting yourself.)

If you go further than that, and look at how private capital has organized itself, you arrive at the corporation. Again, in today's terms, that's multinational corporations. These are the most powerful.

How are these corporations organized? The same relationship: owners/employers (in this case the major shareholders, board of directors, and executives) hire workers/employees. The workers generate profits. What happens to those profits? Where do they go? They go to, essentially, the "owners" -- the board of directors, who decide what to do with the money. Since the board directors are chosen by major shareholders, they usually do the bidding of the major shareholders -- and we see that demonstrated today with stock buybacks and dividends, which accounts for 90+% of profit distribution (please see the links I provided earlier, or google it yourself, as this should be a stunning statement).

This is how business functions in the world today. This is capitalism (again, more specifically, a variant of state-capitalism: neoliberalism). It's completely undemocratic, it's exploitative, and I would say fundamentally illegitimate and unjust. But even if one conceded that, one may still argue about its results.

Yet look at the results in today's world. Look at the level of inequality, to take one obvious example. It rivals the time of the Pharaohs. People have dubbed it the "New Gilded Age." So what is left to say about this system? Does what I describe strike you as a just system (assume for a second that my description is accurate, even if you disagree)?

Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this.
— Xtrix

As I said Amoxicillin is also safe and effective. Should I take that too? Being safe and effective is not sufficient justification to cover all the policies you advocate. — Isaac

I wasn't advocating "policies," I was pointing out that irrationality abounds.

Also, amoxicillin is safe and effective, yes. Should people start refusing to take amoxicillin when told to by a doctor, I think the example would be relevant. During a pandemic, when experts are encouraging taking the safe and effective vaccines, and people are refusing for irrational reasons (for the same reasons they believe in election fraud), I'd say that's a problem. That was my entire point.

Somehow you don't -- fine. Not interested in expanding on truisms.

I asked you for a non-media source for your claim that there's an 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists in favour of the policies you advocate. You've given me a media source showing that one scientist agrees with you. — Isaac

Again, I wasn't advocating policies. I was pointing out something that anyone who isn't caught up in the "controversy" of vaccines would readily recognize. I was also questioning the "incentive" policy. That's not advocacy.

It's not one scientist, it's thousands of scientists and doctors. I simply liked how closely what he was saying matched what I was. What he's pointing out is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be stated. Alas, apparently it does.

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.
— Xtrix

No. Neither do I. Again, 'safe and effective' does not automatically lead to 'everyone ought to take them'. — Isaac

Yes, and you persist in thinking that "everyone ought to take them" is my "policy" that I'm "advocating." You're wrong. That's not what I'm advocating, and that's not what I initially said. To do the legwork for you, this is what you decided to chime in on:

I quoted a New York Times article about using "incentives" to encourage vaccination...

So in other words: we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.

What to do about it? Use "incentives." Translation: rewards and punishments. When people behave like animals, treat them as such and that will work. Behaviorism prevails, in this case. Simple principles of classical and operant conditioning will be enormously effective.

There's a part of me that's very leery about all this, even though I think it's justified in this case, based on scientific and medical consensus/direction, but much like the analogy to the teenager coming home for curfew because she's afraid of "negative incentive," that's far from ideal. Best to have a child understand why the rule is in place to begin with, not simply to force compliance with threats.

[...]

And we certainly have a real issue in the United States. Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. We're as divided and confused as ever.

[...]

Anyway -- if "incentives" is the way of the future, it'll lead to even more division and violence. But when half the country's behavior effects the other half and vice versa, something has to be done. This is a tough one -- but in the end I blame the 40 years of the neoliberal assault and the influential people who engineered it. This is what comes from putting greed above everything.

I stand by every word of that. I'm sorry you continually want to make this about your bizarre vaccine obsession.

Being able to own the capital to make products to sell. — schopenhauer1

Worker co-ops do the same thing. Ownership and private property doesn’t define capitalism— that’s existed for millennia. Neither does making profits.

So I reject that definition— it’s not describing what makes capitalism unique. It’s a hierarchical power structure, a system— one which is organized different from, say, feudalism.

So again, what are your sources for this claim that your position is supported by an 'overwhelming consensus'? — Isaac

Not my position. Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this. Find your own articles about it if you’re interested— literally any credible journal or organization in the world.

Aaron Ciechanover, an Israeli scientist and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, called on the population to trust the scientific consensus on COVID-19 vaccines.

He said that people’s reluctance to get vaccinated has been caused by preconceptions, misinformation, and opinions of leaders that go against the general consensus of the scientific community.

https://tec.mx/en/news/national/research/nobel-laureate-calls-trust-scientific-consensus-vaccines

This is exactly what I’m saying.

Indeed. Recently I've been listening to Vinay Prasad, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, Norman Fenton, Pete Doshi, Paul Hunter... Or are they the 'wrong' experts? — Isaac

:yawn:

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.

Again: election fraud is also widely believed. Why not spend your time defending that as well?

I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and lo — schopenhauer1

What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations.

Yes, it turns out you can do pretty well economically if you employ slave labor, suppress free trade, steal innovations from freer countries, and exploit your citizenry. — NOS4A2

I know— that’s why I said the United States does well.

Communist parties do. I might wonder which communist state, current or otherwise, you’d prefer to live in, but I suspect I know the answer. — NOS4A2

So the United States is a communist party? Since it's a moral and systematic failure, it meets those criteria.

China is ruled by a communist party. Do pretty well economically...but then again so does the US.

Yeah well H promotes "misunderstanding" both with the obscurant sophistry of his texts and rare, explicit statements such as
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
— Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), Notes 1936-1938
Note N's prescient criticism sixty-something years before:
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.
— The Gay Science, 173 — 180 Proof

We're all well aware of this criticism. Heidegger in fact addresses it immediately and explicitly in Being and Time. For something so incomprehensible, how is it that I can explain it? If you think I can't explain it, then point out the contradictions or murkiness.

I think Heidegger did indeed strive for clarity. What was being discussed was so mired in traditional words and concepts that it requires more effort to understand his language, but that's not the same as obscurantism.

The most significant problem with this misinterpretation is that it then causes people to mistakenly presume that the primary subject matter of Being and Time is the meaning of being.

It is not.

Instead, the primary subject matter of Being and Time is an explication of Dasein in its average everydayness. — Arne

But always in the context of the question of the meaning of being, which Heidegger repeats over and over again.

The explication of dasein, even in what's published, is oriented towards the goal of eventually re-interpreting dasein as temporality (hence Being and Time). The move will ultimately be: our perspective for interpreting the meaning of being is based in time -- because that's what we are, and we're the one's asking the question about the meaning of being. He'll argue that since the Greeks, being has been interpreted in terms of the present (presence, ousia).

That's the entire thesis.

Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Didn't realize the United States employed Marxist doctrines.



So then we also agree that capitalism, as a system, is also fundamentally illegitimate -- regardless of how well people are treated in some cases.

what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? — schopenhauer1

The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?

It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years).

The way that "wage slavery" works today in a practically non-unionized work force is that employers, whether capitalists, governments, or non-profits have control of the economy and of the workforce. [workers are not unionized for a reason: employers have been waging a continuous war against unions. Put it this way: unionism didn't die out, it was murdered.] — Bitter Crank

:100:

If we address what should be the case, instead of what is the case (I assume we are doing that), I can think of no reason why relatively few people should make and retain huge amounts of money while others do not, and in fact have much less. There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition.

If it isn't, though, we have to consider the worthiness of having a great deal more money and assets than others in a world of limited resources with an increasing population. I think that the very rich are the equivalent of gluttons or hoarders in such a world--in our world--because their conduct is so selfish that they strive to possess and retain much, much more than they could possibly need to live comfortable lives (not just survive) where others merely survive, or live in need and want. Gluttons and hoarders aren't admirable; they aren't moral. We should stop thinking they are. — Ciceronianus

This is excellent. Incredible how often something so plain is overlooked. It's a stupid game, one with no limits -- no cap. People can hoard and hoard to infinity, all under the rationale that "innovation and hard work" would cease if you took away the "incentive" to accumulate endlessly.

How about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? He will say that he used his capital and wits to do this and employs people who voluntarily sell him their labor as a result. — schopenhauer1

There are many scenarios, especially in the cases of small businesses, that are run by families, friends, etc. There are sole proprietorships and partnerships of two or more people, etc. Some are run by decent people who treat others with respect, pay decent wages, etc. But again this ignores something important: the very system of power. There were, after all, very decent slave owners -- but you wouldn't argue, I presume, that this fact justifies the system of slavery?

So if there's a sweeping generalization being made here, I think it's about the very heart of the capitalist system itself, which from my point of view (and others) a particular arrangement of control, dominance and authority -- that is, a relationship of power. It is defined not as lord and vessel, King/Queen and subjects, master and slave -- but of employer and employee.

The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). So it's a socioeconomic system that is maintained by governments, and isn't at all inevitable. This system is, in fact, deeply undemocratic -- which is plainly obvious for anyone who works in a company with such a "capitalist" structure.

...and the 80/70%? You think they've made their decision rationally because...? It happens to be the same as yours? — Isaac

A good deal of them are making the decision because of media, what their doctors say, etc. So I would say they're making a correct decision, in that it corresponds to the consensus of experts, but not necessarily made through extensive thought or research.

Corporate science says everyone must take the vaccine and you unquestioningly fall in line. They say 'jump' you say 'how high?' — Isaac

I realize this is your take on the matter, yes. It's stunningly ridiculous.

I'm not listening to "corporate science," I'm listening to science.

Maybe you have disagreements about quantum theory as well. Does my listening to the consensus about quantum theory mean I'm only following "corporate physicists"?

You fail to see, repeatedly, why there's even this level of "debate" and "controversy" to begin with. Those who are just "asking questions" about last year's election make similar claims about skepticism. What they fail to see is that their skepticism on this particular issue isn't an accident to begin with. It's a product of our current intellectual climate, which has its causes -- many of which I've gone over already, and which vaccine "skepticism" is simply another example of. That the 2020 election was stolen is also believed by many people -- and it's irrational. Do we say those who believe the election was legitimate are equally irrational because they don't know the ins and outs of state election laws?

The science and medical consensus on vaccines is overwhelming. They're safe and effective. The expert consensus on the election is that it was free and fair. Many people believe otherwise in both cases. My point is: there are reasons for this. The reason, in part, is years of consuming media that systematically undermine trust in science, expertise, government, academia. It's anti-intellectual and usually conspiratorial. This was the point, and it still stands.

So? That doesn't therefore mean it's in their interests to provide those facts to us, unfiltered. What they themselves benefit from knowing and what they benefit from us thinking are two completely different things. — Isaac

Of course. Polling is a good example.

Where's your impartial, non-media, evidence of the 'overwhelming consensus' you keep referring to? — Isaac

There is overwhelming consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, and should be taken by those eligible. I'm not interested in "debating" this again. If you want to continue your quest, you're welcome to. The point made wasn't exclusively about vaccine resistance, which is only one symptom of a larger problem.

I assume then, you're in favour of people doing their own research? — Isaac

Of course.

When someone like Vinay Prasad speaks out against promoting vaccines for children, he's obviously concerned about the suffering of the children. What makes you think you've the monopoly on concern? — Isaac

I don't. I think you misread what I wrote or I didn't communicate it effectively. I was in that case describing my own emotional reactions -- that they arise mostly out of concern for the continuation of the human experiment.

No insisting that any mention of the word 'politics' must refer to your party ties is what assumes that. — Isaac

Fair enough, I suppose. I have no idea what political factor you're referring to, in this case.

Hospitals are government and media?
— Xtrix

Absolutely. — Book273

Hospitals are not governments, and they're not media.

Oh but I forget. There's a crisis on, so we all must pretend that hospitals are all run by Dr. Kildare. He wouldn't massage any figures would he? — Isaac

We should listen to experts and have reasonable faith in our scientific and medical institutions and processes, whether in a crisis or not. The real crisis, however, is why non-experts (like you) pick certain issues to "question" and not others. That very choice is not an accident, whether it's about election fraud or vaccine efficacy. Millions believe in election fraud -- and I bet every one of these people feel that they're the exception, in that that they came to this belief on their own free will.

I had someone just tell me almost exactly the same thing about election fraud -- that I'm the dupe for trusting in government data. That's an interesting fact.

No. I mentioned (bolded for your reading pleasure).

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media.
— Isaac — Isaac

I've already mentioned several sources which I (and apparently you) find credible.

But I don't remember saying 20/30% is "problematic," I said that after years of consuming media that systematically undermine academia, expertise, science, research, and truth, there is an outgrowth of stupid decisions. Perhaps it's the word "stupid" you object to -- fine. Irrational is better. Many (though admittedly not all, but i would argue MOST) of that 20/30% are making these decisions irrationally, partly based on the consumption of the media I mentioned before (in this case, conservative media -- talk radio and Fox News in particular and for longer; social media like Facebook more recently). I don't necessarily include you in this group, but I don't remember much about my exchange with you.

Your argument that it's a problem (the low vaccination rates), relies on studies and data produced by exactly the corporations and governments (and presented in the exact media) you've condemned for 'leading us astray'. — Isaac

If you consider science and medicine somehow part of corporate and social media (which I what I was talking about) or governments, fine. I don't. If we discount all science that is funded by corporations or government, we're ruling out a lot indeed. I think it's important to be skeptical, but remember that it's in the interest of corporations and governments to get facts, to really know what's going on -- if for no other reason than that it increases their power, control, wealth, self-interests, etc. I mentioned polling as one example. That's extremely important to companies -- they want accurate polling, not simply what they'd like to hear -- because it turns out being delusional about the world is often a very poor policy, especially when it comes to numbers.

In any case, I never accused the government of "leading us astray" in this case, nor corporations, because I think both happen to be (reluctantly) doing the right thing by following the advice of experts. They haven't done that great a job -- I think, much like with climate change, that we should be following more of the prescriptions, the programs that scientists and experts are advising. Here we're back to where I think we discussed consensus -- and I argue in favor of following the consensus, particularly if it's overwhelming.

You trusted governments, media and corporations to do those things for you and decided to believe the results you were thereby handed. — Isaac

So listening to experts, and to the evidence and studies that they cite from credible sources, and even looking at the sources directly (science and medical journals), I would hardly qualify as "trusting government and corporations." It is true that journals and academic research publications generally, are a type of "media." They are not corporate media.

So yes, one thing you mentioned is technically true: I'm trusting a form of media. Short of polling people myself and seeing and collecting evidence first hand, as you mentioned, and which is absurd, I have to often rely on media. If I speak to friends who are also experts in a given field, if not dealing with them face-to-face, I have to rely on e-mail, telephones, texts, and even letters -- all are a kind of medium. If we want to get technical. Bottom line: yes, I mostly trust experts and the reasons and evidence they present.

Yes. you said you trusted the hospital data. I assume you're polling them yourself. Otherwise it's not the hospital data you're trusting is it, it's the data of whomever tells you they've polled the hospitals. — Isaac

Who cite their sources, which come mostly from hospitals, doctors, researchers, etc. True, they could all be wrong. So could mechanical engineers and quantum physicists. But I usually have to assume they know what they're talking about. I extend the same approach to general medicine and epidemiology.

You were earlier imploring that we not 'do our own research'. Now you're saying we should listen directly to the experts. Which is it? — Isaac

When did I say that?

I seriously doubt you have even close to the expertise to judge the accuracy of an article in the Lancet. — Isaac

It's not very difficult to follow research papers. Those that make the top journals are usually clearly written as well. What you mean by "accuracy" I can't say -- there is, again, a large degree of trust involved. But I take the attitude that even I wanted to learn further or look into the experiments or data myself, that what I found would align with the data, results, and evidence that's being presented.

I never claimed to be myself an expert in medicine. Rather, I said I listen to the experts.

This idea that you're just impartially constructing an opinion by listening, unfiltered, to the experts is transparently bullshit. — Isaac

Right, but I never once made that claim. Of course I'm partial -- I hold a particular set of values and beliefs. I hold a perspective. That's everyone, I would say. I try my best to put emotions aside -- that I'm less successful with. But that frustration, even borderline contempt, really is rooted in wanting to see human beings thrive rather than suffer and die. I wouldn't mistake this flaw as having much to say about my analysis, beliefs, principles, and conclusions.

You choose the experts you're going to listen to on the basis of whether they're supporting the message your politics inclines you to believe. — Isaac

But this assumes I'm in the two-party trap which I've already myself condemned. This gets launched at me occasionally, but I see no evidence of it. I have made no secret of my voting record and rationale for it, of what I think of our political and economic system, of the power of misinformation and social media bubbles, who I follow/consult/listen to, what sources I trust, etc. I feel no loyalty to any political ideology, even anarchism. It's whatever our current situation calls for -- a kind of pragmatism perhaps. Is that the "message" that's being supported by Nature, Science, the Lancet, the New York Times, the WSJ?

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate.
— Xtrix

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355437113_Discrepancies_and_inconsistencies_in_UK_Government_datasets_compromise_accuracy_of_mortality_rate_comparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ — Isaac

You had mentioned the number of people vaccinated. These articles have nothing to say about that. They’re talking about vaccinated and unvaccinated death rates.

None of those publications record death rates. — Isaac

I never once mentioned death rates.

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?
— Xtrix

So you're polling hospitals directly yourself? And yes, journals are media. — Isaac

Polling hospitals myself? Is this a serious question?

Journals are not corporate media — which was the topic. My fault, I guess, for not specifying the obvious.

Uh huh, and "thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us." — Isaac

No — I simply encourage people to listen to the science and to medical experts. I’ve said that from the beginning, and have been very transparent about my sources and about what sources I take seriously. I take the Lancet seriously; I don’t take social media or corporate opinion shows seriously (as most Americans do, and which was the initial —uncontroversial — point I was making).

Sorry that you struggle with truisms in your quest to defend vaccine “skepticism.”

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue.
— Xtrix

Yes. That's clear from what you've already written, but since you're not the Oracle of Delphi we expect reasoning or justification for your beliefs. Its a discussion forum. It gets a bit boring if it's just an exchange of pronouncements. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in your reasons. — Isaac

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate. True, there could be a vast conspiracy — but that’s on you to show.

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue.
— Xtrix

Again, reasons please, not just opinion. — Isaac

Reasons for what?

I think the reasons behind conservative media are fairly straightforward: appeal to advertisers, stoking hostility and prejudice, etc — all very good for business. Ditto for MSNBC.

After years of Rush Limbaugh and the undermining of truth, it’s no wonder that people are confused about whether to take a safe, effective vaccine. Or whether the election was “stolen,” etc.

These are symptoms, from years of media conditioning that has systematically undermined science and expertise.

to.

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc).
— Xtrix

So where do you get your information from? — Isaac

From scientific journals and medical journals, mostly. The Lancet, Science, Nature, etc. I also read the Times, WSJ, etc.

So corporate media is prepared to steer society off a cliff, encourage mass deaths and leave no habitable earth for our grandchildren, but apparently infusing actual news stories with bias is one step too far for them? Who are these people? — Isaac

Straw man.

Not once did I say corporate media is “prepared” to steer us off the cliff. In fact corporate America happens to be aligning itself with science and facts when it comes to vaccines — why? Because they’re not idiots, and when it comes to their bottom line they’re very serious. Same with polling.

Perhaps it’s helpful for you to pause 5 seconds before responding to what you THINK I’m saying, and look at what I’m ACTUALLY saying.

But the data you're basing your conclusions on doesn't come from medical experts. It comes from the government and the media. — Isaac

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?

I'll try and make the distinction really simple for you... — Isaac

Yes, because I’m definitely the one struggling to understand here. :roll:

I really don't know how much more gently I can break this to you, but governments lie. — Isaac

Riveting analysis. Thank you for the insight.

Filters largely controlled by corporate or political interests, filters with their own personal biases. — Isaac

Yes, and thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us.

The reality is you’re as much a victim of the info-demic as the suckers who believe the election was stolen, repeating exactly the same lines and “challenging” sources and the very nature of truth and facts just to maintain their conditioned beliefs. Yes, I know you reject this assessment.

The issue isn’t science and medicine — or even government. The issue is that most Americans listen to opinion shows, run by corporate America, and are stuck in information silos via social media. That is what’s accelerating these whacky beliefs and stupid decisions, not to mention our divisions. There’s nothing controversial about this — it’s well documented and rather obvious. You want to somehow appropriate this fact and apply it to science and medicine, a la Trump and “fake news,” but that’s your issue, not mine.

If most of the money is going to stock buybacks and dividends, my question is why do they do that? who decides, the CEO? You mentioned that it hasn't always been that way....how and why was it different? — John McMannis

All good questions. The people who decided are generally the board of directors and the CEO. Sometimes the CEO is also the board chairman.

Why do they decide to give so much back to shareholders -- in the form of dividends and boosting the stock prices by buying them back? It's because of a way of thinking that's started to grip academia and corporate America in the 1970s and 80s: the shareholder doctrine, also know as the "Friedman Doctrine." This states that the shareholders are the true owners, and that a company's sole responsibility is to make a profit for its owners. This is what's believed. The policies that followed, starting with compensating CEOs with stocks and allowing buybacks again (rule 10b-18) are both justified by this way of thinking.

That's beginning to change now, as the Business Roundtable and other major business lobby groups have started talking about the "stakeholder doctrine" instead. So far just words.

It indeed hasn't always been that way. I mentioned the 50s and 60s -- there corporate governance was different, and with much better economic results.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-bizroundtable/if-corporations-dont-put-shareholders-first-what-happens-to-business-judgment-rule-idUSKCN1VC2FS