Yes, as I've said before, nobody pays for a free hamburger.
— Baden

But if you OrGaNiZe and be an AcTiVisT they will name a National Burger Day (after a woman chef) and Trump wouldn't do that! — StreetlightX

Right, so let's throw votes away and re-elect Trump. Because THAT'S what changed the DNC in 2016, of course -- not this silly "organizing and activism" (ridiculed like a teenager on Twitter), which is a waste of time.

What a buffoon. Like I have said repeatedly to you: you'll fit in better with Twitter.

Now the names Gorsuch and Kavanaugh come to mind. So do the 200 federal judges confirmed so far. — Frank Apisa

Or the environmental regulations being destroyed, the Paris Accords being scrapped, the climate change denial of the former oil lobbyists now running the EPA, etc.

At a time when scientists are telling us we have very little time to waste in tacking climate change, we're here having to argue not to throw votes away? And after 2016, too -- in which their "strategy" succeeded. (So much for the DNC learning the error of their ways.)

It's mind-blowing.

1) Dems come to their senses and change their policies.
2) Dems lose and realize they're going to have to come to their senses and change their policies if they ever want to get their guy elected again.

Alternative: They win and never come to their senses and change their policies. — Baden

This is your reasoning?

Or 3: progressives elect Biden and continue to hold his feet to the flame -- something which is totally impossible with a Trump administration. This is the option that matters, not throwing a vote away which the DNC could just as easily interpret as they wish (like they did in 2016). The real work is in activism every day, not in playing games every four years.

Let them impeach Biden if it becomes clear he's guilty of rape or going senile. Who cares. It's not about the person, it's about the real world and the real chances of effecting change.

With Trump, there's zero chance -- none.

But you have to be delusional to think that this is what Biden will enable. — StreetlightX

He's already made concessions. I mentioned some already. Is it more or less "delusional" than believing Trump will be swayed by pressure?

If you're not willing to hold them accountable now, exactly when? — StreetlightX

Electing Trump isn't holding them accountable. You hold them accountable as you've always have -- not simply by throwing a vote away every four years because it makes you feel better, but by the hard work of organizing and pressuring administrative leadership every day, week after week. That's the only hope.

Ask yourself how the democratic party has changed so far. Was it by electing Trump in 2016? No. It was Bernie Sanders and his campaign, which organized millions of people and resulted in the creation of progressive programs (like the Green New Deal) and which continued fighting for the last four years.

You also completely underestimate how dire the straits are right now for the environment, and the impact Trump will have with his band of oil executives running the EPA. This is no time to play games because we're angry Bernie lost.

Just give the DNC carte blanche and acquiesce in the obsolescence of what minimal democracy you have. — StreetlightX

Let me make it as simple as I can for you:

It's precisely that we want to have an administration we can influence (we progressives), thus being the exact OPPOSITE of "carte blanche." We want to either destroy or take over the DNC, as Bernie has started to do.

Thus we need to push for the election of this senile neoliberal (alleged) rapist. It's a terrible choice, but that's the system -- what's the alternative? The alternative is Trump, where we have 0 say -- nothing. No chance of any policies being adopted, and will in fact have to fight to not have the polices we like completely gutted. We watch on as he appoints more judges to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court (for lifetime tenor).

If you and Baden still refuse to acknowledge this point, there's no sense pretending to be rational. Let's just behave like it's Twitter.

It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them. — Baden

OK, this is actually a valid point. I would hardly say I'm "hurling abuse" though.

What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump. — Baden

All right -- yet one can hardly blame someone for getting frustrated when one repeatedly does so and gets ignored. At that point, is there any sense to rational discussion?

Yeah just a few "hot spots of American life" like incarcerating blacks at record rates and supporting illegal, region-runing wars. Usual American stuff. — StreetlightX

Biden is a terrible candidate? Amazing -- you've figured this all out already. Tell us more.

Forget who will or won't vote for him. Can anyone tell me what he offers progressives? — Baden

He's already agreed to a $15 minimum wage, thanks to trying to court Bernie voters. He's much more open to progressive environmental policies than Trump, which is crucial. He's also rather empty as a candidate and thus, as I mentioned before (and which people like you always ignore), he will be much more easily pressured than a Trump presidency, who will continue to take us backward.

That's the choice progressives have. No one is saying they like Biden, no one is saying they condone rape, no one is saying the Democrats are wonderful, etc etc.

If you understand the imperative underside of the kind of "democracy" we have, then you understand that not voting, or casting a vote for someone who cannot win, thus possibly in effect voting for the worse candidate, is a statement of ignorance about our system. — tim wood

Yes.

New Dem campaign slogan "Some things are more important than rape. Vote Biden". — Baden

We don't know if he raped her or not. But if he did, no one is saying that's right. He should be tried and convicted.

There's also a thing called the real world, which you ignore for false equivalence and delusions about taking a righteous stand by throwing away your vote (which is a vote for Trump, by the way).

Maybe. It's not just about rape though. It's about things like climate change, which is more important. — bert1

This is a very good point indeed, and the most important. It's completely ignored by the likes of "Baden" and others, who are determined to help Trump get re-elected -- all so that they feel better.

So you vote third party or you don't vote. Very simple. — Baden

Yes, very simple: help re-elect Trump, clearly the most evil and most damaging. And why? Because a) it'll make you feel better about yourself, b) Biden is just as bad, or c) Biden is the lesser of the two evils but we don't care about that.

Yes, by voting your conscience like you logically pure humanists. So admirable. Get Trump elected -- but that's beside the point. Biden is just as "evil."

Yeah, you and "Big Money Hustla" make strong points.

Why Twitter? I can play with halfwits right here! — StreetlightX

You'll fit right in. Better match for you.

But of real political organizing and activism
— Xtrix

Last time I checked, 'being held electorally hostage' was not in the activist playbook, but I suppose Americans do things weird. — StreetlightX

More brilliance.

Try Twitter.

"Won't adopt any of your ideas."

Yeah, to political hobbyists like you, who do nothing except give your very deep political analysis (and thankful we all are for it) every four years, it's a foregone conclusion that no ideas will be adopted. (Hint: because you do nothing.)

Your conclusion: let's make sure we convince enough people to vote third party, or just sit out, and thus help Trump secure another 4 years.

Such brilliant logic.

It really comes down to this: those who say that not voting for Biden are voting for Trump miss the fact that it was very policies and politics championed by Biden and his ilk which got you Trump in the first place. — StreetlightX

That point has hardly been "missed."

A vote for Biden is a vote for the next Trump, and the one after that. — StreetlightX

No, it isn't. A vote for Biden is a vote to get Trump out of office. Then the work continues: not the analysis of armchair philosophers and political hobbyists, but of real political organizing and activism which will continue to pressure the administration into incorporating progressive policies.

That's how change is done, not by simply voting every four years and especially not voting for the the worst president in history (or contributing to his re-election with a sanctimonious "vote of conscience.")

American electoral politics has been a ratchet mechanism for the last two generations, with each click of the wheel forestalled only by a momentary holding pattern before plunging straight back into reactionary hell again. — StreetlightX

Riveting analysis. Now run along and help Trump get re-elected.

Such righteous people, determined to vote their "conscience" yet again. Such pure convictions.

Sure, Trump will be re-elected and continue destroying both the planet and the economy for four years, appointing another 2 Supreme Court justices for a lifetime, etc. -- but at least we'll feel better.

It seems to me that scientific practice rarely requires meditation upon the fundamental nature of nature; it's contextualised and regionalised. So in that regard, any conception of nature as its own thing (in toto or in itself) does not seem to be a requirement of doing science. — fdrake

I agree -- but no one is arguing that.

I guess that leaves questions of transcendental priority; can someone conceive of any particular predictive understanding of nature without using something like phusis? If it's a ground for science, it's not going to be a ground of scientific practice, it'll be a ground in terms of conceptual/logical priority. — fdrake

Maybe. But perhaps not even that. It's not that scientists have to even understanding their sense of "being" (as nature) or even question it, it's that it permeates everything they do as a background premise. How do we know it's a background premise? Because whenever they speak of the "universe," or the "physical," of laws of nature, forces of nature, "matter" (atoms and molecules), etc., there is embedded a very definite understanding of being in general (nature), of human being (the rational animal, or in current formulation the "primate with language"), of subjects and objects, of "bodies" and "objects" (beings), of "mind and matter," and so on. Whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu or atheist or part of "scientism," scientists are human beings who have to operate with some kind of picture of the world. No person is without philosophy or religion, in this sense. So it doesn't matter if they can articulate it, question it, or even know it -- just as many "Christians" walk around never questioning their specific meaning of "God." But it does seem that one they do articulate it, or are questioned about it, "nature" or the "physical" is usually what vocalized at some point.

Thus it's worth asking about this word and its origin (in phusis).

So it seems to me if the analysis of phusis takes a central place in science, it only does so as a transcendental ground, and needs only behave that way given the stipulations of interpreting it that way. Maybe Deleuzians would put difference at the center, maybe Schopenhaurians would put will there. — fdrake

I don't know what the last examples have to do with. Put "difference" and "will" at the center of what? Phusis?

Regardless, I wasn't advocating putting phusis as the "central place in science," I'm saying it is a basis for science if and only if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science (which I contend is a naturalism or physicalism). Just the uncontroversial etymology of the words "nature" and "physics" will immediately show you there is.

So then we ask, "What was phusis to the Greeks?" Turns out, something very different than what we mean. In Heidegger, the emphasis has become more and more about "substance," about presence. Science turns out to be one iteration of the metaphysics of presence since the Greek inception of philosophy.

By saying things like this, you are guaranteed to alienate progressives and independents, who you need to win. — Baden

I campaigned for Bernie, so I guess that makes me "progressive." I was and still am livid at the DNC's shenanigans (for the second time).

I'm not alienated in the least. Trump isn't Hitler, but those so repulsed by Biden will help him get re-elected if they don't vote or vote third party. That's both inexcusable and infinitely stupid. If this were the 90s, maybe I'd understand. But the stakes are too high now for protest votes and pouting at home.

You're both just fine with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper — Baden

I won't expect you to understand, since it's nuanced, but no I'm not. I don't like Biden at all, nor am I a "self-righteous Dem" -- I'm pointing out a simple choice: Trump or Biden. Biden's an old, senile establishment Democrat of the Clinton-Obama machine. It doesn't take genius to see that. What requires another 30 seconds of thought, which you apparently fail to do, is to compare him to Trump and see which will cause the country (and the world) more damage in the next four years. Then you hold your nose and vote against the worst choice, especially in a swing state. This is not an endorsement for Biden or the Democratic party. It's not "selling out." It's a simple choice.

If still unconvinced, ask yourself another question: Who can be pressured more to adopt progressive policies, like the policies Sanders was advocating -- Trump or Biden? That's another important consideration, quite apart from policy differences (like that of climate change).

So no, the point isn't a matter of "being fine" with the candidate the DNC has deemed worthy of the nomination. I can't stand him, but I will vote for him -- as I did for Hillary in 2016, which was the correct thing to do given the assumption that we would like the best chances to go on as a species. We have the same unfortunate choice in 2020. And yet many people, including you apparently, still struggle with it. Should take 3 minutes to decide what to do here.

Easily demonstrated by the following question: What "party line" are you talking about, exactly? — Xtrix

Oh tell me more of what Heidegger-daddy said! — StreetlightX

Exactly. Like I said: try Twitter.

What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis.
— Xtrix

No you're not. You're interested in elaborations on the Heideggarian party line. — StreetlightX

No, as I've demonstrated over and over again -- from the OP onwards -- that the issue for analysis and discussion is phusis.

"Elaborations on the Heideggarian party line" is gibberish. You're not fooling me or anyone else into believing you have read Heidegger. (And no, scrolling over PDFs you've found on the Internet to find something you think supports one of your pretentious, superficial "opinions" is not the reading I mean.)

Easily demonstrated by the following question: What "party line" are you talking about, exactly?

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Feel free to try Twitter next time.

Heidegger contradicts de Beistegui in a number of ways.
— Xtrix

Trying to figure out why you think this. — StreetlightX

Which I explained. Take one example: the supposed opposition of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Heidegger rejects this.

There was also no metaphysics in Aristotle.

In any case if I knew you only wanted to read things that agreed with your preconceptions then I ought not to have posted anything. — StreetlightX

Then go pout somewhere else about it, by all means.

What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis.

Here here.

Heidegger calls dasein being-wth-care. So the care of Being and our care add more being to an already existing world? — Gregory

"More being"? What does that mean?

Dasein's existence is care, which gets re-interpreted later as temporality. Our thrown-ness, our falling, our projection end up becoming the three aspects of a unified time (temporality, as apart from "world time" or "clock time" of ordinary use): past, present, future. They're all happening at once. It's in terms of time that we interpret or understand "being" at all -- both what the "world" is and what we are (as human beings).

I wasn't aware there is a rule about commenting. — jgill

There is no such "rule." But showing up just to announce you "don't think this thread is a good idea" is completely pointless. Generally grown adults keep non-constructive comments like that to themselves and simply move on.

Not every opinion needs to be declared. This isn't Twitter.

Great response. I think you've understood Heidegger well.

The East has generally said the world is illusion. The West says it exists. Heidegger seems to be trying to say the world has existence but not being until we bring being to it. — Gregory

That's not what he's saying -- from my reading anyway. In fact "existence" is reserved for the being of human beings in Being and Time.

To understand the quoted passage, you have to understand his sense of the "preontological understanding of being" which we all have, and the ready-to-hand activity which we're most often engaged in. Both of these aspects are contrasted with the present-at-hand -- which is what he's saying about "objective" or "factual" reality out there in the world.

Being has been tied to "presence" for millennia, since the Greeks in fact. The term "ousia" (and parousia) Heidegger uses as examples of this. But he repeatedly points out that "being" is almost always something absent, concealed, hidden.

Not a good idea for a thread IMO. — jgill

Then it's a good thing no one asked you for your opinion about the thread. If you don't like it, don't vote and don't comment.

I'm registered to vote in a reddish safe state, so most probably I'll vote "third party" like always (except in 2008). — 180 Proof

Makes sense I suppose.

You did. But...clearly you want no discussion. Have a good evening. — jacksonsprat22

Where? Here's what I said, to which you responded about ontos:

Surely. But I'm emphasizing (vis a vis Heidegger) phusis as "emerging, abiding sway," the presence of an entity disclosed to us in aletheia (truth, unconealedness). This was the Greek sense of "being." — Xtrix

Not one mention of "ontos." Yes, the word "being" (as in A being, an entity or a "thing") is "ontos," but that's not phusis, which is the Greek sense of the being of entities (beings).

It's not about not wanting a discussion, it's about not drifting into irrelevance. If you care to explain what you meant, by all means. Otherwise, yes: good evening indeed. I have no time for nonsense.

You brought it up. Was it irrelevant to you? — jacksonsprat22

I never brought up ontos.

ontos just means "thing" — jacksonsprat22

Yeah, or "entity" or "being." What's the relevance?

Surely. But I'm emphasizing (vis a vis Heidegger) phusis as "emerging, abiding sway," the presence of an entity disclosed to us in aletheia (truth, unconealedness). This was the Greek sense of "being."

Yes, that's true, but that's not quite the sense that phusis means. It doesn't necessarily mean a literal "development" of a plant, say. It's more the blooming, the emergence, of a thing.

Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years.
— Xtrix

At last you got it. — Baden

"At last"? This implies I've talked about this a lot with you, yet don't remember doing so at all.

There's nothing to "get," beyond making a choice any 8-year-old could make and which many on here seem to be struggling with.

You're exactly right: phusis is much more a matter of "growth" -- as "blooming" for example -- in ancient Greece.

I don't agree with the second part of your statement, however.

Interesting to read this thread, watching people gradually convincing themselves, once again, to elect Trump.

Not voting or voting third party is a vote for Trump (unless in a safe state). We have a clear choice: decide who the most damaging candidate is, and vote against that person.

If you can't decide who the worst is, after 3 years of Trump, or somehow equate Biden and Trump, then Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years.