If you're not violating someone else's rights, then even if what you're doing is stupid - and not getting a vaccine is stupid - then no one is entitled to stop you doing what you're doing. Indeed, you need to butt out and let people live the lives they want to lead. Let them, to use Mill's term, engage in their own 'experiment in living'. — Bartricks

Fascinating back and forth.

I have a quick question (apologies for the poor articulation): Assuming the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine(s) is beyond doubt - you seem to believe this - do I have a right to spread potentially lethal misinformation? I doubt any who choose to not take the vaccine look at it as if they're making a stupid, reckless decision - they of course see things quite differently.

Anyhow, I find much of what you've written congenial, but it does seem to presuppose important conditions that are rarely met, e.g., reliable sources, indisputable facts, expert consensus, etc. Does the state have a role to play in securing these conditions of rational and ethical decision making? in stopping the spreader of disinformation (again, only applicable to cases where the issue is beyond doubt) from peddling harmful, even lethal ideas?

I think I know what your answer will be (it's up to the individual to uncover the truth without state intervention) though I'm curious to see the reasoning behind it.

@Ross Campbell

One reason for Nietzsche's contempt for Christianity is its positing of the meaning of this life in a beyond (a crude form of Platonism), in an idealized afterworld, thereby slandering this world, the only world, in all its richness, strangeness, creativity, beauty, terror, etc. Moreover, that idealized world is designed to rob our normal drives of their innocence and to invert the supposedly "natural" hierarchy among human beings, privileging the weak, the resentful, the numerically superior mediocrities over the ascending, joyful, yes-saying creators.

His criticisms definitely seem to rely on caricatures and straw men. I do however think there's quite a bit that's compelling in his analyses, not only of Christianity, but of the modern, secularized Western world which has rejected Christian metaphysics while clinging to its (in Nietzsche's opinion decadent) values and assumptions.

He did distinguish between Jesus the man and teacher (sharing many of the positive views of Jesus that you highlighted earlier), whom he grudgingly admired even while remaining critical of his ultimate vision, and the organized system of Christianity which came to dominate Europe not only politically, but mentally and spiritually. He seems a bit similar to Kierkegaard in that regard although I'm not too familiar with the latter's work so I can't speak with confidence.

I think he interpreted the uniformity of modern science and the egalitarianism of modern democracy to be symptomatic of that lingering Christian influence: The result is a world composed of an indistinct mass of petty human beings consuming mass-created products while boasting of their "progress" and "freedom" and "individuality" etc. He saw the extreme, presumably Christian-inspired leveling coming and tried to formulate the rudiments of a counter-movement. He's a dangerous thinker for sure.

Not sure if that adds anything; it's a pretty standard take. Basically, Christianity does a number on what Nietzsche's takes to be "life" and this is not due to later perversions of a corrupt institutional church - it's right there in the words and deeds of Jesus. (I think this is an interesting debate and I'd like to see it addressed by competent scholars.)

Excellent.

Lots of wisdom in that post.

True. I suppose it all depends on the seriousness with which one engages these issues and ideas, ideas that contain(ed) genuine insight but have become vacuous through repeated, often thoughtless use, or even tools of political manipulation. That distinction comes out in the course of the conversation.

And it's no bother at all. This is a massively important issue, especially for Americans, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm perplexed as to how to approach it best, being sensitive to alternative perspectives and blind spots while not wavering in my fundamental (colorblind) belief that my friends include anyone who's good to my family, anyone who's supported me in tough times, anyone who shares my guiding values and assumptions about "the good life" etc. regardless of what they look like or who they have sex with or almost anything else.

I know that's not a sophisticated viewpoint these days but it's deeply rooted in the way I was brought up and the way I continue to live my life.

I blame Covid and the lockdowns. It's sucked the energy out of me. — Michael

I certainly feel like Trump's election fucked up the vibe a bit too - or maybe even more than a bit - a few years ago. Speaking generally, posters and mods became more annoyed, less charitable, less willing to discuss contentious issues from a spirit of lively disagreement. Of course this idealized pre-Trump state of affairs is probably a fiction of my imagination, but I don't think it's crazy to assume there's some truth to it. In fact, to some extent I think we're still living in the highly polarized context that emerged with his clownish presidency.

But lately I've missed this place and the people who contribute here, some of whose posts I've been reading for around 20 years now dating back to the old PF (damn!). Some very intelligent, very high quality people frequent these boards and I wish I had the time and the energy to be more involved in the discussions.

Anyway, I just returned so I can't form a solid opinion on whether the forum's gotten better or worse just yet (from my biased perspective, of course), but so far it looks pretty good.

Vent away. You seem to know a lot more about this topic than I do and I'm always eager to assimilate new knowledge and ideas into my hopefully larger and broader perspective. (Yet another banality I continue to take seriously.)

"Altruistuc egoism" sounds like an oxymoron à la "bitter sweet" but hey, there are times, many in my own life, when the latter is precisely what the doctor ordered (apt) and so the former too must be meaningful in its own way, — TheMadFool

I'm not familiar with this concept's technical usage or even the debates in which it has its place, but it somehow makes intuitive sense by avoiding sharp dichotomies (if an action brings any pleasure it's ipso facto selfish) and acknowledging that the types of actions and pleasures are important. If I receive pleasure as a byproduct of helping other people that's a far different sort of egoism than if I'm swindling them out of their money or possessions.

I may be way off here but it's not a bad way of framing the possibilities lol.

Yeah, I think you're right. I know the shift in direction away from colorblindness and toward racial identity politics predates Trump (eg black separatist movement of Marcus Garvey and early Malcolm X) but his election seems to have accelerated the process big-time by disabusing many the idea that racists were a small irrelevant minority. That's the post-Trump perception at least, and while I may find the old aspirational colorblindness far more congenial, this newer, less idealistic approach is not without merit.

Anyhow thanks for the recommendation - I'll have a look.

:up:

Totally agree. I have my own idiosyncratic brand of politics - a weird but imho coherent blend of a certain type of older conservatism and progressivism - but I'm right there with you on everything.

It is as follows (and is a prime example of shitty writing): "I don't see colour", a very famous phrase used in the approach of colour blind racism. It’s essentially the idea that the only way to end racial discrimination is by ignoring the reality of their race. This is an issue because by saying you don’t see colour, is saying that you don’t see people of colour. The need for color blindness implies that there is something shameful about the way people of colour and their culture are made we shouldn’t talk about or not see and dismisses the issues which people of colour face. It was an ideology created by white people who are uncomfortable talking about race which does much more bad than it does good. — ToothyMaw

This seems like an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a common platitude that simply means you don't give a shit about what others look like, you care abut who they are in terms of character, common interests, etc. The questionable assumption is that who someone really is is not essentially related (if it's at all related) to their race, which seems pretty ridiculous and insensitive when applied to black people and other non-whites who've been "othered" and dehumanized for so long.

But I don't think the phrase itself must necessarily come from a bad or even an ignorant place. I grew up in late-Cold War 1980s USA listening to "Ebony and Ivory" and "We are the World" and watching shows like "Different Strokes" and the aspirational color-blindness was imho positive. I knew that racism continued to be a huge issue but it felt like things were getting better, however slowly. That feeling lingers on if I'm being honest (not that things are getting better, but that the aspiration is humane and worth fighting for) - the idea of minimizing the importance of immutable traits - and that's why I find some of the more aggressive stuff out there now a bit off-putting and alienating.

Some people genuinely do not care about race, and that profession of color-blindness isn't always used to avoid addressing tough racial issues.

What he's pointing out, however, is hypocrisy. Why? Because when it comes to the rich, they're the first ones that benefit from a welfare state, despite professing the ideal of "individualism." When the poor ask for anything, however, they're told to take a hike. — Xtrix

Absolutely. In US history at least wealthy economic conservatives have talked a good game about the virtues of self-discipline and freedom from government control, but they've also been the quiet beneficiaries of centralized influence over protective tariffs, immigration policy, monetary policy, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

Absolutely, Baden. There's a strong streak of anti-intellectualism that runs through American history dating back to the Great Awakening and Trump fits in with it perfectly.

I don't think he's capable of articulating in the most basic of terms his position on, say, ACB's judicial philosophy, and why he thinks that'll make her a competent SC judge. He has no clue and absolutely zero interest in those sorts of things.

I mean, you don't need to be an intellectual heavyweight to be an effective president, of course, but I do think you should have at least a general (i.e. non-specialized) grasp of, and interest in, relevant political, cultural, historical, and geostrategic issues.

4d cHeSs. — Baden

Some of the things Trump says (and does) appear to be so devoid of thoughtfulness or even cynical strategic calculations that you're led to assume he *must* be playing some sophisticated game that you're not smart enough to understand. Then, after waiting for him to surprise you with some brilliant move that never materializes, it hits you: he's just not a very intelligent guy and even his vaunted "instincts" are greatly exaggerated.

For sure. I was originally so focused on the possible deception in the title that I didn't notice its humor.

Good point. The first time I watched the self-deprecation and the mockery of Biden and the crowd's laughter combined to create the impression that he was clearly joking.

But the next time I watched he seemed to get serious (at least as serious as he can get) when he said that he may need to leave the country if he loses.

After watching a couple more times I'm almost convinced that he was being serious at the end if not the beginning; like he was wondering out loud if he was going to be forced to leave if Biden wins, and not just out of embarrassment.

Granted I have a tendency to over-analyze.

After watching the video in the linked article I think the title is misleading, and a more accurate description would be "Trump Jokes That He May Leave the Country if He Loses to Biden."

I don't like Trump - joking about it may even be worse than floating it as a genuine possibility - but I do think the truth is important and I find it insulting when others (regardless of who they are or what they claim to stand for) try to deceive us.

Edit: OK, I just watched it a couple more times and it's less clear to me that he was joking. Hard to say with this guy.

Out of my element here but as far as I know not all religions (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism) posit an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being. In fact I'm not even certain this applies to all those working within the Judeo-Christian tradition, with process theologians and various mystics being possible counter-examples.

I know it's not relevant to the topic at hand but I like to think that if there is a God (in the traditional "omni" sense), and "He" gave us the ability to think and reason, then "He" would appreciate our using these faculties even if they ultimately lead to more questions than answers; to an honest skepticism or even atheism rather than a dogmatic theism; to a sense of wonder at the existence of this world over its dismissal in favor of future one.

:up:

You seem to have a narrow understanding of “success”—as being equated with having a respectable career, making lots of money, gaining social recognition, etc. This almost reads like a variant of some Ayn Randian panegyric to the captains of industry, who face resentment from the lowly hoi polloi instead of receiving the praise they deserve.

Setting aside the contingency and questionabilty of your taken-for-granted understanding of success for a moment, you also omit the relevance of undeserved inherited wealth and status from your considerations. Most elites come from families that have provided them with significant advantages relative to non-elites, so the “winners” often achieve victory through minimal (if any) effort of their own.

Anyhow, when one rejects the presuppositions of success (and greatness) on which you build your case—ostensibly based on the underlying value system of consumerism—then the argument falls flat, at least for those not in thrall to this way of life. I want a new breed of “elites” who inspire others to move beyond worshiping wealth, beyond subordinating every aspect of existence to economic imperatives; who see human beings as potentially much more than mindless consumers... Let’s get good at that.

Not a matter of rejecting elites per se, but only the notion that our current “elites”—liberal, conservative, progressive or whatever—are exemplary in ways that should be recognized as such at this stage in history.

It says "Plato was right — Benkei

Damn straight he was right.

An alternative perspective that I hear on occasion is that it’s a big mistake to underestimate his practical intelligence. One pundit who hates Trump speculated that his recent comments were designed to goad Dems to proceed with impeachment, which may not be such a great idea according to polls.

Didn’t Machiavelli suggest that when an opponent makes an egregious blunder it’s prudent to assume they’re laying a trap? I don’t know enough to speak on the topic of Trump’s intelligence/strategy with any confidence, but I thought it was an interesting counter-intuitive point.

Amazing that someone so incredibly dumb that it doesn’t even occur to him that admitting he’d take oppo research from a foreign government—especially given previous accusations of collusion—may look bad. He could even become president of the US despite being such an idiot, when far more intelligent and impressive people—with lots of money and connections—haven’t been able to achieve such a thing.

What does that say about the US electorate? Or maybe even about democracy?

Trump is strange in that he lies about dumb things where other politicians would tell the truth, but he’ll also occasionally tell the truth where others would lie, e.g., cheating on his taxes (“it makes me smart”) & accepting oppo research from a foreign government.

:up:

Sorry for the digression. I do think it's somewhat relevant to the larger issues addressed here as it relates to Scruton's character, or lack thereof. It establishes (if true) that he's been dishonest about his aims & motivations in the past, and may therefore be dishonest in the cases under discussion here, anti-Semitism & Islamophobia.

Yeah, I think you're probably right in this case. But would we take the same approach if he was being paid by an anti-tobacco group to push its agenda? Or by an anti-gun group? Or an organization dedicated to preserving the environment? Or pushing forward legislation favorable to unions? I feel like conservative groups try to dismiss the legitimacy of scientists, academics, etc. along those lines all the time (e.g., "They're being funded by George Soros!"). It's not the pay he received that's troubling but his apparent willingness to twist the facts in an attempt to advance his interests, and to do so at the expense of others.

I love to see others take principled stances on matters even if (especially if!) it hurts them financially (or otherwise). It's a way of asserting one's freedom & dignity in a world where a good deal of cynicism is warranted, if we can speak of these things as being more than mere platitudes these days. But again, I'm more concerned with this issue in general (getting paid de-legitimizes one's advocacy) than with the specific facts of this case.

Anyhow, if that's an unintentional misrepresentation of the position you're taking then my apologies.

Thanks for the elaboration on Heidegger's thinking & nothingness. You articulated the position much better than I could have and therefore saved me the trouble of following through with my own views (which roughly match yours).

"In a leaked e-mail, he was shown to have suggested that the cigarette company extend his two-year-old contract by a further £12,000 a year in return for his placing of articles in the media defending smokers' rights.

In the e-mail, Prof Scruton advised the company that it could avoid giving the health department details of its cigarettes' ingredients by claiming that to do so would give away "trade secrets"."

He deserves to be called a few names. Which I will leave to the reader's imagination. — Baden

I think his payment by cig companies should cast some suspicion on his motives, esp given the level of research on the topic and the undeniable harm that comes from smoking, but I don't think being paid by a particular company, cause, etc. necessarily precludes one from being a sincere supporter of said things. One may despise cigarettes (or porn, or guns, etc.) while also supporting another's right to smoke as a matter of personal freedom against government encroachment, or something along those lines.

Seems a slippery slope to dismiss arguments of those who receive personal compensation for taking a stance on a matter that aligns with the interests of powerful entities that may have, let's say, different motives than one's own. Suspicion is warranted once the financial relationship is disclosed, IMO, but not outright dismissal.

All that said, I do think the cynical appeal to protecting "trade secrets" as a means of refusing to disclose harmful information diminishes the position in this particular case. Don't know enough about Scruton to say one way or another so I'm just speaking in generalities here.

I think your reservations are warranted. I may try to comment on this topic in some detail a bit later, as it will take some time to put forth what I take to be Heidegger’s views, but yeah, I think you’re right to be a bit apprehensive about the path he takes (and by extension the Buddhist position, as far as I understand it), especially in the later work.

Nice post. Oddly, I think your view of dasein’s lack of substance aligns in some way significant way with Heidegger’s own, to wit, that we’re a sort of nothingness in which things are revealed (and concealed). Sounds absurd, of course, but there are similar ideas in Eastern thought (specifically Buddhist & more specifically Zen emphasis on no-self) & also in the Western mystical tradition (e.g Kenosis). May be mystical mumbo jumbo, unworthy of serious philosophical reflection, but it’s not without precedent & does make a bit of sense intuitively (at least to me).

Oh and in order to avoid confusion I should also add that Heidegger’s views on dasein seem to have shifted through the years: in B&T it’s a bit of a paradox that we are dasein even if we don’t understand ourselves as such. This would seem to challenge my previous statement that it requires a “leap” in order to truly understand what he’s getting at. The later Heidegger seems to think that dasein is a possible way of being (an increasingly unlikely one in this age of technology) and not a given; one which is aware of a relatedness to Being & purposely cultivates the “clearing” given to it — the “shepherd of Being” stuff that’s more poetic than strictly philosophical.

First off, he certainly didn’t conceal his appreciation of Husserl - B&T was dedicated to Husserl. — I like sushi

I may have misunderstood your initial point - Heidegger assumed "much of the body of Husserl's work would never see the light of day" - to mean that he could safely steal the latter's ideas, or repackage them without significant changes, without this being noticed. If that's not what you had in mind then my bad.

I do appreciate your more detailed (and less snarky) engagement with Heidegger's work. In some way(s) the notion of dasein is definitely enigmatic - even after his attempt to lay out fundamental features - in the sense that in order to understand it fully one must have already made the "leap" beyond the inner/outer split underlying subjectivity into an understanding of the self as the "clearing" of Being. Reminds one a bit of Wittgenstein's preface to the TLP (no one will understand this book unless they've thought the same or at least similar thoughts) or the Buddhist notion that "only a Buddha can recognize a Buddha."

So it's less a definition than a description of a way of being (or being-in-the-world); an experience of the (pre-theoretical) way that we exist in which the old conceptual apparatus does not suffice to describe the phenomenon. This being so, to offer a definition that others will quickly understand without further ado, by using the old conceptual framework, will only lead to confusion. IMO that's not a cowardly evasion -- that's the nature of Heidegger's undertaking, in which he's struggling to describe the being of human beings interpreted in the light of our relatedness to Being. Yeah, sounds like jumbled, meaningless mess but I do think he was sincere in the endeavor.

The remainder of your post was interesting. As far as Husserl goes, my knowledge is extremely limited - mostly indirect through Heidegger & Heidegger scholars - so I can't add anything on that front. Heidegger makes it clear how much he was influenced by Husserl's phenomenological method - but also the significant areas where the two part ways - and as far as I know he (Heidegger) may have lifted more of his teacher's ideas than he let on. I would have to have a thorough knowledge of both to make that judgement, which I clearly do not.

FWIW I have my own (amateur) criticisms of Heidegger's philosophy, and I do appreciate when others sense potential shortcomings in his work, or offer insightful challenges to his guiding suppositions, etc. I think I'm just used to quick dismissals from people who almost always reveal how little effort they've made to understand him. Not saying you did this (you obviously have a good deal of knowledge concerning Husserl's thought), but that's what I've come to expect.

The main one would be the definition (or rather lack of) of the term “dasein”. — I like sushi

He tries to do this throughout B&T, which is in large part a reinterpretation of human existence, away from its associations with mind, consciousness, subjectivity, etc. and towards a sort of non-dualistic openness onto the world.

You can say Dasein is the "there of Being" or some such, but that doesn't help much until you understand what he means by Being. I'd at least read through the work so you can see where he & Husserl apparently diverge. Too complex (for me at least) to define Dasein in a way that's quick & accessible.

Also, I don't think he tried to conceal the debt he owed Husserl; if he was trying to do that he probably wouldn't have dedicated Being and Time to him.

Not sure what Chomsky said about Zizek (although I could imagine), but one problem with this position, IMO, is that some seminal postmodern figures were not leftists. I'm referring specifically to Nietzsche & Heidegger, who in turn influenced Foucault, Derrida, and other members of the postmodern pantheon.

That concession alone doesn't automatically refute your theory: Their works could have been appropriated and used for nefarious ends - in some plot to fragment the leftist opposition to neoliberalism, etc. - but basic tenets of postmodernism (as I understand them) are not exclusive to those who identify with liberal or progressive politics.

Maybe you could offer some specific criticisms of Heidegger's work.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, but an independent who thinks the system is broken - here is what I think would be a great ending. The Senate approves Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday - and on Monday he declines the nomination. And in declining he says the Senate has so politicized the confirmation process that his ascendancy to the Court could hurt its ability to act as a check on both the Administration and the Legislature. — Rank Amateur

That truly would be an awesome scenario. Unfortunately, the nobility of soul needed for such a gesture is completely lacking on both sides of the political aisle at the moment.

Maw is right about Flake IMO. No chance.

A very good point! Something's definitely fishy about this. A couple Dems almost seemed apologetic about the hypothetical investigation after Kavanaugh's impassioned remarks on what these proceedings have done to his family and reputation. I'm normally cynical but at one point I was struck by how sincere one of the Dems sounded (forgot which one) when addressing Kavanaugh, imploring him to embrace the idea of the FBI looking into these affairs for closure so they could all move forward with possible confirmation. That was my impression at least - a genuine desire to get to the bottom of these troubling allegations.

Furthermore, his repeated attempts to keep the focus on his many achievements during that time - impressive as they are - seemed designed to distract. Being an exceptional student and athlete etc. does not preclude one from also being a douche who drank too much on occasion and acted (at the very least) like an ass. He clearly tried to create that false dilemma. Sure, he acknowledged his drinking habits, but he did so in a strange way that upon further reflection seemed pretty manipulative. Hard to pinpoint exactly what it was but I do think he had a clear strategy in mind, that this wasn't quite as improvised and "from the heart" as I'd originally assumed.

My amateur analysis as nothing more than a reasonably competent bullshitter.

I do think it's odd that Kavanaugh is so hostile to the idea of an FBI probe into these supposedly false accusations. You'd think he'd be begging for it in order to clear his name, or at least receptive to one if that will satisfy the unconvinced. But he's really against it, and this lends itself to reasonable speculation that he's probably not being completely forthright about his past. If you're innocent and have been telling the truth all along then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Or so it would seem.

Regarding the "devil's triangle" thing, I still have vivid recollection of the time when an 8th grade teacher - in a very strange and uncomfortable class (for me) called "teen living" where we talked about sex and other "difficult" things - used the term in reference to vagina. That's the first thing I thought of here with the old yearbook reference, but it may very well have additional meanings.