Lol, why didn't he just leave the site on his own? Darn, I liked him too.

That's what happens when you're not around for awhile :rofl: — Agustino

Well I'm second-guessing myself now, but I'm almost positive I've seen him drop expletives here and there. I do it too occasionally. One possible difference, perhaps, is that I don't think he (Maw) directs them at others as insults.

Anyhow I'm bummed Buxte is gone as I felt he made some valuable contributions to this forum.

That's a good point though about making possible concessions to the idiosyncrasies of certain longstanding posters. Or even newer but high quality ones like my old friend, Thanatos Sand. But I also get the need to be consistent with the rules and not apply them selectively.

Maw doesn't swear? Are you kidding me!

3. Your prior comment made no sense, which is that Lincoln was being pursuaded to pass the 13th Amendment to avoid war. He came into office after the South seceded, meaning an Amendment would have had no effect on the South. His desire for the Amendment came much later, well after he changed the basis of the war to be to end slavery. — Hanover

To my knowledge, Lincoln didn't originally advocate for the complete abolition of slavery but only opposed its extension into new territories. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 in front of a Northern audience in Illinois, for instance, Douglas pressed him on this issue and repeatedly tried to corner him into admitting he was an abolitionist.

Lincoln always affirmed the superiority of whites, even if one suspects this went against what he truly believed. That sort of insincere pandering to popular anti-black sentiment was apparently necessary in order to win even the Republican nomination. So prejudice against blacks was not confined to the South.

Interesting conversation though. Wish I knew more about Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Klan, etc. I'm open to book suggestions if anyone has one.

It's interesting to note that the concern with anxiety, death, and authenticity in the early Heidegger falls off in the later work in favor of notions like 'releasement', shepherding (as in 'shepherds of Being'), etc. So in some significant ways I think the later H would actually agree with @Ciceronianus the White :gasp: that he may have over-emphasized these phenomena originally and, related to that point, that they're likely much more pronounced in the modern world - of extreme subjectivity and the death of God - than they were among the ancients.

Pretty sure those who dislike Trump personally also find fault with his policies. So the two things are seen as being essentially related, with his proposed policies on (e.g.) immigration, tariffs, alliances etc. all being expressions of his deeply flawed character and ultimately designed for his personal enrichment. That's how I've seen it pitched at least.

Oh, and his willingness to lie about even the most trivial things is taken to be corrosive to our political system (it is), as is his constant attempt to undermine trust in the media.

I think overcoming nihilism would/will involve a rejection of both sides in this conflict. No racist and nationalistic nonsense but also no longing for the days when our system melded together corporate, political, and military power all backed by a largely complicit media.

I refuse to think these are the only available options.

Yes, it IS nihilism. That's where we're at IMO.

I think the only way to avoid being a hypocrite these days is by not succumbing to false dilemmas. The fact that Trump is a lying, manipulative con artist whose vision for America is unworthy of support does not preclude the possibility that the "establishment" he rails against is also full of lying, manipulative con artists whose vision for America is also unworthy of support. That's been my basic position from the start, and I think it gives one a bit of critical distance from which to observe and judge the situation as impartially as is humanely possible.

@Wayfarer

Conservatives have been split on issues for some time though: neoconservatives and paleoconservatives, fiscal conservative and cultural conservatives, etc. which predate Trump's presidency.

I'd be cautious in holding up neoconservatives like Bill Kristol (love his Conversations though!) and Max Boot as exemplary models of what a principled conservatism looks like by way of juxtaposition with Trump.

Made fun of a guy (a protester) for having long hair too. This was the first time I listened to one of his speeches in its entirety. Unimpressed.

People subjected to shaming will conform outwardly in order to avoid public humiliation, but they will also harbor grudges against you - which they'll obviously hide until they feel it's safe to come out in the open - for embarrassing them. That's a horrible way to cultivate employee morale (not to mention customer satisfaction!) or good will among fellow citizens. If your employees feel like their superiors are condescending pricks then the level of commitment/job satisfaction drops, and you're left with high rates of turnover, absenteeism, etc.

That's the stereotype of the corporate mentality: your employees are easily replaceable anonymous names on the payroll (who rather than adding value merely eat into your profits) who are lazy, sneaky, shortsighted, etc. and who need to be kept in a constant state of fear. There's some truth to this within that specific context. I would however be cautious in translating that model/mindset to other spheres of life, especially those which do not subordinate human beings to a "system" which sees them in strictly instrumental terms.

In my experience in (small) business it's almost always a better strategy - at least a long-term one - to treat employees like adults. "Hey you lazy idiot I'm going to fire you if you don't pull your head out of your ass!" is translated to, "This is what the job requires and if it's something you can't do consistently then you should seek employment elsewhere." I've disciplined/counseled many a worker in those (calm) terms and have gotten pretty good results, and by "good results" I include parting ways as amicably as possible when differences are irresolveable. More often, though, it results in significantly improved attitude and performance.

I guess my main point here would be to argue against the idea that being an asshole is the best way to convince others of the rightness of your position. They''ll fake it out of fear - as noted there's some truth to that - but the change will be superficial, insincere, and precarious. I'd also add that being a "nice guy" does not necessarily preclude toughness when warranted, so that's a false dilemma. One can be a genuinely solid and compassionate person while not at all being a pushover. That's the sort of leadership that people admire and want to be around.

Now within the context of political debate, in my experience shaming works even less than in the business world - at least not in the sense of leading to genuine change in the other's perspective. What does work every so often, however, is (e.g.) acknowledging the partial legitimacy of their perspective, admitting the limitations of our own, suggesting that their views have been manipulated by people who don't share their noble intentions, etc. So you try to find some common ground and then work from there.

That attempt to foster good will by recognizing the "humanity" or basic decency of our perceived adversaries can make them much more receptive to our position than they'd otherwise be. If you wan't to stir up the "base" who already think like you then yeah, go ahead and shame those who are different. On the other hand, if you want to compel those who may be indecisive, or who may even be on the other side of an issue, then treating them with respect will likely work better. It's a rare person who doesn't get defensive and totally closed off when personally attacked.

There are some evil POS out there who don't deserve any sort of charity, of course, and these should be shamed for their heartless beliefs and/or actions (Trump!). But the main concern IMO should be with those who don't fall into this category, who may be misinformed or misguided. Decent people can hold irrational and/or even unethical views, but getting them to see that requires a bit of subtlety. Maybe others with a background in psychology can chime in here, but getting people (including ourselves!) to see the truth is, or can be, incredibly difficult.

Just my thoughts. We can all get back to the productive exchange of insults now.

I'll have a look. I'm only vaguely familiar with Merleau-Ponty through secondary sources but would like to learn more - I'll definitely join the reading group if it gets off the ground. I'd also like to engage in the discussion on Being and Time that's been talked about for a few weeks now.

Hey Arne. Nice to meet someone who shares my interests in Nietzsche and Heidegger.

You could be right. My views on Nietzsche are highly provisional, and I waver quite a bit on this particular issue. I do think one could interpret the two - self and others - as being essentially related in a Heideggerian way, with the overcoming the self necessarily involving a radical confrontation/overcoming of the conforming, inauthentic they-self that each of us initially are. We overcome/become ourselves only by overcoming the decadence we've come to embody within our nihilistic Western society.

But I do agree that I may have overstated the case a bit here in my attempt to highlight the fact that Nietzsche was not a liberal democrat - or an anarchist - whose primary goal was to inspire the individual to his or her true creative self. That's obviously a big part his agenda, but it seems a mere prelude to the much larger and world-historical task of cultivating (imposing?) a radical new set of life-affirming values for ALL of society. Some lead and others follow. So once again the self and others seem inseparable.

Finally, I do agree with the assessment that Nietzsche was basically a very kind and generous soul. That greatness of soul was one of the first things I sensed when I started reading him. And this is why it's so hard to reconcile his many positive comments on (e.g.) the caste system, Cesar Borgia, the desirability of human breeding, etc.

But this "other-worldly" transcendence is actually no transcendence at all since it is in-truth conceptualized as another immanent possibility of the world. It is actually a devaluation of transcendence. For example, Heaven is not a different world than this one, it is actually this Earth, and this nature that will be healed and lifted up. The position that the world is entirely sick, beyond redemption, is a heresy in Christianity. — Agustino

I actually like this approach, but are you suggesting that Nietzsche unfairly caricatured Christianity? That genuine Christianity - as opposed to Nietzsche's straw man - doesn't posit another "true" world in the beyond which serves to falsify and condemn this one? That Heaven and Earth will be ultimately be reconciled?

I think his evidence is pretty compelling, with things like pride and the accumulation of power being seen as sins against God rather than natural expressions of ascending life. I assumed the "other" world for Christians was one in which the meek shall reign supreme, the proud shall be eternally punished, etc -- not exactly how things normally play out in this one. This picture has obvious consequences in and for this world, so in a certain sense you're right about the constant interplay between the two even as they're separated in thought.

And even if it wasn't - another world is still a world, and therefore not transcendent. Whatever can be brought into the world as a thing or state of affairs is not transcendent. So the "other-worldly" transcendence, located in a different world, is a contradiction in terms. Transcendence is not worldly - it is not a different world. Transcendence exists at every point in the world, and in every world. It is not another thing in the world. It is not something that can be immanentized - brought into the world, captured within your hands. If it was, then it would not be transcendent. — Agustino

But can Christians or Muslims, for instance, have knowledge of that transcendent world beyond vague hopes and descriptions? Streets paved with gold and seventy virgins sort of stuff? Whatever paradise is, it will be another, albeit far superior world, of course, but it's one that we who are still living have little or no access to. That being the case, it's taken as an article of faith: just wait until you see what God has in store for you!

I had a similar conversation with someone on here recently and it seemed like he was understanding "transcendence" in such a broad way as to render it indistinguishable from immanence. As mentioned in reference to Heidegger's philosophy, the two are inseparable for him and maybe even for Nietzsche - but for religious believers within Christianity and Islam (with possible exception of mystics) it seems like they're separated by a wide gulf. To repeat, Heaven in those religions is regarded as a "transcendent" world which the living are denied access to, right? That's like the sine qua non of these religions in fact, the ultimate reward promised to the faithful.

That juxtaposition of this world with another - "how the true world became a fiction" - is what I imagine Nietzsche had in mind. Is there a different term than "other-worldly" that would better describe the supposedly perfect one? I mean, I agree with you on the transcendence/immanence relatedness in principle, but with all due respect I just don't think most religious believers would countenance this philosophical position of yours at all as it relates to their highest hopes. I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant (or even more than somewhat) of specific details, however, so I could be wrong.

It is much more of a pervading (creative, active) quality that can be tapped into anywhere and at any time. It is what Spinoza called natura naturans, or indeed "the will to power" or whatever you want to call the active force that drives natura naturata. The will to power is self-overcoming - it is transcendence itself that shines through the world, pervades it. It is like the air that pervades the lungs. — Agustino

Again, I find this very congenial, but I also think it would be rejected, and vehemently so, by all but a very small minority of religious believers within the Judeo-Christian tradition. To my limited knowledge Spinoza's God was/is a far cry from the God of Augustine, of Aquinas, of Luther. He (or rather It) is something Nietzsche could respect, and precisely because of His immanence! This conception of God sounds a bit like the Tao, or possibly even the seemingly pantheistic Logos of Heraclitus. But to drive the point home, emphatically not the intensely personal loving and caring God of those Western religions which appeal to the "otherworldly" hopes of the faithful.

Anyway, we've gone far afield here (apologies SX) but it's quite possible, likely even, that I'm still not grasping your attempt to collapse or reconceive the distinction between immanent and transcendent. Have another go at it if you'd like.

Not sure if this adds anything but here's Heidegger, in typical melodramatic fashion, on the difficulty of letting something as simple as a tree be itself:

"We stand outside science. Instead we stand before a tree in bloom, for example - and the tree stands before us. The tree faces us. The tree and we meet one another, as the tree stands there and we stand face-to-face with it. As we are in this relation of one to the other, the tree and we are. This face-to-face meeting is not, then, one of these "ideas” buzzing about in our heads. Let us stop here for a moment, as we would catch our breath before and after a leap. For that is what we are now, men who have leapt, out of the familiar realm of science and even, as we shall see, out of the realm of philosophy. And where have we leapt? Perhaps into an abyss? No! Rather, onto some firm soil. Some? No! But on that soil upon which we live and die, if we are honest with ourselves. A curious, indeed unearthly thing that we must first leap onto the soil on which we already stand. When anything so curious as this leap becomes necessary, something must have happened that gives food for thought. Judged scientifically, of course, it remains the most inconsequential thing on earth that each of us has some time stood facing a tree in bloom. After all, what of it? We come and stand, facing a tree, before it, and the tree faces, meets us. Which one is meeting here? The tree, or we? Or both? Or neither? We come and stand - just as we are, and not merely with our head or our consciousness - facing the tree in bloom, and the tree faces, meets us as the tree it is. Or did the tree anticipate us and come before us? Did the tree come first to stand and face us, so that we might come forward face-to-face with it?

What happens here, that the tree stands there to face us, and we come to stand face-to-face with the tree? Where does this presentation take place, when we stand face-to-face before a tree in bloom? Does it by any chance take place in our heads? Of course; many things may take place in our brain when we stand on a meadow and have standing before us a blossoming tree in all its radiance and fragrance - when we perceive it. In fact we even have transforming and amplifying apparatus that can show the processes in our heads as brain currents, render them audible and retrace their course in curves. We can - of course! Is there anything modern man can not do? He can even be helpful, now and then, with what he can do. And he is helping everywhere with the best intentions. Man can - probably none of us have as yet the least premonition of what man will soon be able to do scientifically. But - to stay with our example - while science records the brain currents, what becomes of the tree in bloom? What becomes of the meadow? What becomes of the man - not the brain but the man, who may die under our hands tomorrow and be lost to us, and who at one time came to our encounter? What becomes of the face-to-face, the meeting, the seeing, the forming of the idea, in which the tree presents itself and man comes to stand face-to-face with the tree?..."

Is spirituality in its healthy form not always both "this-worldy" (immanent) and "other-worldly" (transcendent)? It seems that "this-worldly" action is always informed by "other-worldly" understanding. Even if you take Nietzsche who despised the transcendent - wasn't the value creation of the Ubermensch transcendent itself? Where did the value come from, if it wasn't in the world before the Ubermensch? It was the Ubermensch who revealed it, who made it present, and who thereby creatively changed and affirmed the fullness of the world. There is a tension here that must be maintained between the transcendent and the immanent. Plato would call it a metaxy. — Agustino

Yes, I think you're right, although as you point out the connection is contingent upon a proper understanding of transcendence. More specifically, as contrasted with an other-worldly transcendence which slanders and devalues this world in favor of an imagined future one: a la traditional Christianity. Heidegger likewise talks about the transcendence of Dasein within the world.

So the concept of "God" is irrelevant. You can drop the word (as Nietzsche did - "God is dead") but you cannot drop the content - it just gets re-attributed to another concept. The creative action of the Ubermensch has a transcendent source, the Ubermensch reaches out beyond himself to bring what did not exist immanently into existence. So this relationship that Dasein has with Being is a relationship with something that transcends Dasein - and it is only by remembering this relationship (ie, raising up the question of Being anew) that Dasein can be authentic in his immanent actions. The immanent actions are informed by this understanding of Being. — Agustino

But wouldn't Nietzsche say that values brought forth by the Ubermensch lie completely within himself, i.e. within his own being now understood as a manifestation of nature (synonymous with will to power)? And that we'd be deluding ourselves if we attributed these to a transcendent source (pace Heidegger) which we're somehow indebted and responsive to? To me, Nietzsche and Heidegger seem to represent antithetical positions on this matter.

If I were forced to translate the distinction between the two into traditional theological concepts then I'd say that Nietzsche is a robust atheist, or maybe a pantheist (and aren't the two ultimately the same?) whereas Heidegger would be a pan-en-theist, with Being encompassing but also transcending the entirety of beings. Speculative stuff for sure and probably best to leave those traditional concepts behind when approaching these guys, as they're laden with way too much historical/metaphysical baggage.

So then, zooming out further you might say this very situation where standard politics is problematized by the arrival of an interesting if unstable alternative is itself good. Maybe it opens up the conceptual space for imagining a type of politician who is the obverse of the obverses, so to speak. Who's good where Trump is bad and also good where a standard politician is bad.

Or there'll be a nuclear holocaust in Korea followed by WWIII and we all die. Who knows with Trump? :) — Baden

Insightful analysis. I think you're on to something here.

Trump could have let his advisers take the lead on this summit seeing as he didn't prepare for it himself (by his own public admission) instead he insisted on going by "feel" and publicly announcing that beforehand, which made him a sitting duck for manipulation. Knowing him, he did this so that if the meeting was a success he could take all the glory, and prove himself the Master of the Art of the Deal, or whatever. And the result of this is there is no clear result. We have to rely on the bare hope NK are sincere (and, as they never have been before, that's a big ask). — Baden

This is something that I've been thinking about. Someone mentioned earlier that Trump is a bad man, and that bad men are incapable of doing good things. I'm not so sure about that, however, and here's why: What if Trump's massive ego and competitive nature drive him to aspire to great things?

He's not doing them for their own sake, or because he genuinely cares about the people he serves, but only because if successful they lead to personal glory and further self-aggrandizement. You know he wants to go down in the history books as a better president than Obama, maybe even the best president of all time (as absurd as that sounds I bet it's true, albeit delusional).

Anyhow just something I was thinking about. Not sure if the two things - bad man and good president - are necessarily incompatible. It's a Hail Mary of sorts but it's the best we can hope for concerning Trump's motivations.

I consider any and all election meddling an affront to basic human dignity, be it committed by foreigners playing power politics, racist sheriffs playing the whip master, or Affrikaners playing colonial thug. — John Doe

:up:

Yes, which puts honest criticism in a difficult position. As I intimated in the Shoutbox earlier, just because the one who said said you failed doesn't like you doesn't mean you succeeded. You don't get to take that magic carpet ride out of every predicament you get yourself into. Presidents should be held to high standards and maps out of crises drawn from fuzzy warm aspirations are just as likely to lead to perdition as to salvation. Anyhow, we're still in limbo at the moment, so it could be worse. — Baden

Good point. Something about the way the mind typically works seems to make rooting for someone you hate virtually impossible, even if they're involved in something that may benefit you personally. I feel like political strategists understand this tendency very well and exploit it to their side's advantage to the fullest.

Republicans in the past have been able to get poor white people to vote against their economic interests by cultivating resentments and pandering to their lowest (racial, nationalistic, etc.) instincts. Seems like Dems have taken note and now seek to simplify the narrative and demonize certain groups in ways I like to think they used to avoid.

Bill Maher admitted the other day that he's hoping for a recession since that will increase the likelihood of a Trump defeat at the next election. It makes sense but it's also a sad commentary on how incredibly polarized our political situation is. Trump has obviously done nothing to assuage the mutual hatred, so I don't sympathize with him much.

Call me old fashioned, but when the Russian government is actively trying to influence and manipulate our democratic elections, while the Trump administration and GOP-controlled three branches of government do nothing, I find it hard to care about yet another round of empty promises from the DPRK. — John Doe

Out of curiosity, do you also have a problem with the history of the US meddling in the affairs of others around the globe?

I'm not trying to justify Russia's belligerence, but I do want to see if there's a consistent principle being followed in the condemnation; or if perhaps you think that our projection of global power and influence is a positive thing since we're superior, morally or otherwise, to undemocratic nations.

I don't see how one could have it both ways. Leaders of nations will conceal the hypocrisy and injustices, of course, but we who study these things a bit shouldn't be so easily fooled.

There's no argument against rapprochement and no argument against easing hostilities as far as I know, Erik (not-unless it's entirely one-way at least). Not from me anyway. If you read through my posts my criticism is of Trump's strategy re this summit and the result that came from it.

I want to re-emphasize too that the blame for what so far is a fiasco should not be laid primarily at his feet. In an important sense he's been painted into a corner by his predecessors and China (who have been two-faced re NK from the beginning — Baden

That's what I figured. Just wanted to make sure that those criticizing Trump at least agree in principle that a de-escalation of tensions in the region is a good thing. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to acknowledge that many people do in fact hope he fails in the endeavor, despite their protestations to the contrary, just as those who hated Obama so much were pained at the thought of him succeeding in any way as president.

That's the world we live in today, unfortunately, and it can be hard to disentangle things once those emotional associations are made: whatever Trump does is ipso facto bad for one side and good for the other. But whether Trump is going about things in the most effective way re: North Korea is an entirely different matter.

Republicans are typically much more prone than Democrats to advocating for American global economic and military hegemony - especially neoconservatives like Max Boot - so it's really not surprising that many don't agree with Trump's conciliatory overtures to North Korea. Without enemies to keep us on our toes the ignorant and shiftless masses will slip even further into decadence.

Richard Nixon opened up diplomatic relationships with China and the Soviet Union in the early 1970's, both ideological foes and human rights violators, and in hindsight I don't think many people would deny that detente was a much better strategy than overt aggression.

Is the argument against the easing of hostilities based on the fact that Kim is a brutal dictator? Is it more about protecting the interests of the USA in the region? Perhaps some combination of these along with additional things? For me the initial goal should be the modest one of lessening hostilities by opening up dialogue. It's a positive first step; nothing more and nothing less.

But I'm trying to inform myself of the history and specific details right now, and this being so I'm very much receptive to more-informed opinions.

My pleasure. Thanks for the encouragement.

Anyhow I'll shut up now since this topic is only indirectly related to Trump, with him being presented as a manifestation of a decadent, corrupt, nihilistic society. We reject (and thereby overcome) Trump most emphatically by rejecting all that he stands for.

Yes, admittedly idealistic/unrealistic in the short-term, but there are practical steps people can take if they so desire, right here and now, to implement a different set of values into their lives. That's the primary purpose of philosophy IMO dating back to the ancients. We're not mindless automatons totally incapable of escaping from the dominant consumerist paradigm. So at the very least those with philosophical interests can lead the charge.

I would also say, however, that I think there are lots of people - even average, non-philosophically-inclined folk - who feel "deep down" that our society does not currently meet important needs, be they communal or "spiritual" or a combination of these or whatever. Something's off-balance. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the long-term prospects for significant change in the direction I'm talking about, although it would likely take place in gradual, piecemeal fashion if it comes at all. That's actually how I'd prefer the sort of change I'm referring to anyway: at the grassroots level of people and communities instead of through top-down government enforcement (which will never happen without significant pressure from below).

Shifting public opinion "one person at a time" is key, and once a critical mass is reached there could be a proper political/institutional response. It's not that complex, either: work a bit less and spend more time with your family and friends, turn off the television and computer and read books, buy less and go for hikes, enjoy conversations, etc., etc. This proposed shift needn't get bogged down in arcane philosophical jargon.

You gotta think big picture here. By way of analogy, and as someone who's been involved in management for a bit, I've noticed that people generally want to feel like they're part of some larger endeavor, some ambitious collective goal. That's not just management BS either: employees who tie their own self-interest and long-term prospects in with the larger interests of the company they work for tend to perform much better than those who don't. Once you've established that sort of culture then the morale receives a significant boost, and work becomes less tedious and more enjoyable for everyone.

But you have to provide people with that compelling vision, and if you don't, then yeah, they'll just work for a paycheck and be ready to bail out when a better offer comes along. This ability to create a narrative in which personal and collective interests are aligned ( a "common good") is rare, unfortunately, and it requires more than paying lip service to certain values and ideals: you have to actually live them. Politicians are good at the former but not so good at the latter, and the result is an understandable cynicism.

And yes, I'd wager that it largely comes down to the aims and methods of education. Plato's Republic sort of thing. But wait, didn't I just say that I preferred these changes to happen organically? Yeah, we're fucked.

I like this too. I'm not "religious" either, but I do think the basic disposition outlined here shares certain features with genuine (imo this-worldly) "spirituality": humility, wonder, gratitude, openness, receptivity, etc.

That's true about Sanders, at least to a certain extent, but in my experience socialists are often just as beholden to the values/ideals driving capitalism as their economic conservative opponents. They focus their attention on admirable things, like a more just distribution of goods and opportunities, but they don't always, or even typically, tie that in with the type of ontological critique I'm thinking about.

The difference, as I see it, would be like that between, say, someone who wants to socialize advanced education as a means of leveling the playing field for all people in their quest for financial security and material comfort - regardless of race or sex or current socioeconomic class - and another who rejects the very notion that acquiring knowledge and skills to make money is, or should be, the sole (or even the primary) purpose of education; between a person who says that universal healthcare is desirable because it serves the needs of the nation's economy, and another who rejects the idea that all human ends - such as taking care of the sick and poor - should be subordinated to the demands of the economy; between the outlook of a Cornel West and a Ta-Nahisi Coates; etc.

This position doesn't amount to a rejection of economic activity, but rather a massive reprioritizing of the ends for which the economy and the political system should serve. I know it sounds "hippie-ish", but that hypothetical shift in priorities, in the way we relate to our world, would lead to situation in which Donald Trump would no longer be considered a success but rather an embarrassment. So ultimately it's not Donald Trump who's the main problem, it's the "world" which significantly predated and gave rise to him. Those horizons shift historically and there's no reason to think they won't again at some point in the future.

I know the New Left of the 1960's - obviously not so new anymore - latched onto the importance of supplementing economic critiques of capitalism with criticisms of the larger cultural framework in which commercialism and consumerism and militarism hold sway; but today's Left seems to have largely fallen away from that stance in favor of one which adopts the discourse of an economic interpretation of life (for lack of a better description). Shifting money away from militaristic endeavors and towards education and other such things are positive first steps, of course, but I don't think they go far enough if they don't also include a much more significant desire to transform our collective way of being - and importantly beyond that which is envisioned by the current political Left and Right.

Getting rid of Trump is important, but even more important is challenging the underlying values of our American society, and increasingly the world more generally as others adopt our ways. In many ways Trump seems to be an extreme embodiment of those values: "success" equated with wealth and power; every aspect of life subordinated to economic imperatives; hedonism seen as "liberating"; etc.

I remember listening to an interview with Joni Mitchell way back during the US occupation of Iraq, where she was asked about the humiliating pictures of Iraqi prisoners stacked naked in a pyramid with US soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs up for the camera. The official military response was the standard boilerplate "these soldiers are exceptions to the overwhelming majority who conduct themselves with honor and integrity," but she wasn't buying it. How do you expect young people to act, she asked, when they've been raised in a materialistic and hedonistic world which doesn't value things like compassion and sincerity (things that don't sell)? which finds the humiliation of other human beings to be be funny?

Anyhow it's the culture that needs to be changed IMO. As far as I can see, there haven't been too many candidates on either side who've challenged the guiding assumptions at work in our society.

I really appreciate that at least one person here understands exactly where I'm coming from. — fishfry

More than one. I agree with pretty much everything you've posted on the issue.

If you're happy, you're winning. The end. Better to find that out now than when you become "successful" and realize you're actually miserable because you sold yourself out to the social dream.

(People that set conditions on their happiness inevitably find out not only that they cannot be happy unless they've met those conditions but also that they can't be happy if they do because the basis for their happiness is socially conditioned guilt/fear and everything they do to achieve their goals on the basis of those feelings magnifies them further.) — Baden

:up:

I think this sums it up well. If Posty is happy in his current predicament then why in the world would we not be supportive of that? Maybe his values don't align with ours - or with those typically respected in our society (school, work, money...death) - but overcoming an excessive concern with how others perceive us can be a great achievement in itself.

(I'm reminded of the story of Diogenes parading around town with an Olympic wreath he made for himself, and then, after nearly being assaulted by angered townsfolk for the affront to actual Olympians, declaring that his victory over being enslaved to their opinions was even more difficult and glorious than any involving physical achievement. I may have got some details wrong, but that's the gist of it.)

The "way of being" that he finds most congenial, at this moment at least, clearly isn't the cookie cutter recipe for success ostensibly applicable to everyone: it's particular to his idiosyncratic personality and should be judged accordingly. And his judgement on how best to live his life is the one that matters most. If I had one issue here it'd be precisely that: this matter is too personal to solicit the advice or look for confirmation from others. I know that's not necessarily the spirit of his inquiry, but it could be interpreted as such.

It would be much more complex, of course, if he had children or others whose well-being he was responsible for, or if his happiness was tied in with self-destructive behavior, etc. But nothing I've read from him indicates this to be the case, although I may have missed some relevant information as I've only skimmed this thread.

Not sure what you seem so upset about. For the record I'm not trying to unfairly slander Nietzsche, nor am I trying to offer philosophical support for Nazism by suggesting there may be elements of his thought that are amenable to the use they made of him. There are other aspects of his philosophy that are at odds with their worldview (e.g. largely based on resentment), of course, which I thought I made clear. What I am trying to do is touch upon some of those more disturbing aspects of his philosophy - the subject of this thread being his purported misappropriation by Nazis. You're perfectly free to gloss over or ignore them entirely. Imo that's dishonest.

I'm honestly confused as to how a person could believe this. Its almost tempting to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just blatantly lying as much as you feel like... Their appeals to the fatherland, german-ness, fetishization of ancestors, notions of a true european from which certain people had to be violently excluded. One could argue that these were simply window dressing for the masses which is basically what you've done already with regards to christianity. But such an argument could be made for literally anything ever. There's simply no point in even spending time considering such an empty potentiality. — dork ichiban

What am I "lying" about? And what would my motivation be to lie?

More to the point, what do you understand by the term transcendence? That's a good place to start, I think, because it seems as though we understand different things by the term. I'm tempted to throw your accusation right back at you and say that your understanding of "transcendence" seems so broad as to include every possible morality and worldview which could conceivably exist. They're all transcendent, religious and non-religious alike. But feel free to offer a counter-example by way of useful juxtaposition to show a political or religious movement which has not made appeals to notions of a people, a nation, a race, a class, ancestors, etc. in a "transcendent" sense. One which has not posited an enemy or "other", etc.

And yes, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most of these things are, in Nietzsche's estimation, "window dressing" for the masses. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's seriously read Nietzsche would dispute this, so I'm going to assume (once again) that I'm misunderstanding you. Having said that, I always try to qualify my tentative views ("To my knowledge...") and avoid making dogmatic claims, so if I'm wrong about anything then do me the courtesy of showing me where and I'll gladly change my position. You seem to be emotionally invested in this topic in a way that I'm not.

Furthermore, I wasn't giving my take on Christianity, but what I understand to be Nietzsche's. Do you disagree with his largely negative and cynical understanding of the religion? Is that consistent with his published work? If you're interested in my personal views, then I'll admit to holding a largely positive view of Christianity. In Nietzsche's estimation, however, I'd be a decadent: I favor the poor and oppressed, for example, over the wealthy and powerful. And yet there are many other things in his work that I find inspiring which I'd be glad to discuss.

This is meant to be drawn from nietzsche talking about the laws of manu? It is best to remember the context in which people write. In nietzsches case this means being familiar with indian culture and philosophy at best almost entirely from reading louis jacolliot. Which is to say that his knowledge of india was mostly non-existent jacolliot having fabricated and/or exaggerated most of what he wrote. The orientalism of the time effected perception of india as well and nietzsche was not immune to this foolishness. — dork ichiban

So Nietzsche's feelings about Indian religion and culture are irrelevant because he was working with a flawed understanding of it? However much Orientalists may have misrepresented the facts of the culture is a matter totally separate from Nietzsche's glowing affirmation of that alleged fabrication. He celebrated the idea of the caste system - however distorted his understanding was - and I will happily trot out relevant passages if you'd like which support this position.

If you want to talk of nietzsche's rejection of socialism or egalitarianism stirner or novatore are much better points of comparison. And the nazis are a much better example of what nietzsche meant by herd morality than not. — dork ichiban

What does this even mean? We're not talking about Stirner or anyone other than Nietzsche here, so once again you've introduced an irrelevance presumably in order to distract from the fact that Nietzsche, too, had nothing positive to say about socialism. Do you dispute that?

And did you try to imply that nazis were socialists? Next you'll try to tell me that the cops serve and protect or that the kkk is just showing pride for their white heritage. And no doubt whites from northern states just use the confederate flag to show pride for their ancestors eh. In the future you should try considering that someone claiming a thing should not be considered proof of said thing. — dork ichiban

I'll tell you the cops serve and protect? Huh? I thought it was common knowledge that Nazism claimed to represent a "third way" beyond capitalism and communism. The one good thing about this most uncharitable strawman though - with its seemingly shameless and dishonest insinuations of my own beliefs - is that you've revealed your political leanings. I hate to break it to you, dork, but Nietzsche is no ally. I'll say it again: Nietzsche is a complex thinker who holds some disturbing and occasionally contradictory views. But he's far removed from the political left and right, at least those manifestations that are relevant these days. I'd even say that he "transcends" those superficial categories. IMO of course.

Also, according to that distinction you made (as I understand it) between master and slave morality, it would appear as though the Nazis were adherents of master morality. To my knowledge they made no attempt to posit values through some transcendent source, through anything other than will to power. Hence they may not have been misinterpreting Nietzsche as much as many of us would like to think. I don't want to believe that, but it does seem to be the proper conclusion of the reasoning.

@TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think the two - worldy vs otherworldy - can be separated so sharply, and I don't think Nietzsche felt they could either, unless of course he were to take the lofty "spiritual" pronouncements proffered by religious founders and practitioners at face value, which I don't think he did.

The fact is Christianity became a worldly power, and it did so through the creation/revelation of a new set of values (e.g. all souls equal before God, the meek shall inherit the earth, pride is a sin against God, etc.) that were hostile to those which reigned in the ancient pagan world of Greece and Rome. Paul supposedly knew very well what he was doing, which was using otherworldy hopes to inspire thisworldy ends.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and missing some fundamental distinction here?

Someone once pointed out that Nietzsche despised nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism, but if we're willing to overlook these facts then he may very well have made a great Nazi.

There are many aspects of Nietzsche's thought, however, which make the relationship more complex. These include: his glorification of war and power; his view that the essence of life involves struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc.; his rejection of egalitarianism and other values/beliefs underlying both liberal democracy and communism; his rejection of "herd morality"; his waxing enthusiastic about the establishment of a rigid and racially-based caste system by Aryan conquerors in the Indian subcontinent; his feeling that the leveling tendencies of modern democracies will pave the way for "higher" types to exploit them as malleable material for amoral, non-democratic ends; his ambiguous feelings about Jews, and specifically his associating them with the priestly class he so detested (e.g. their being responsible for the "slave revolt" in morality that he identified with Christianity); etc.

So yeah, I think it's a complex matter. And while I think it's safe to say that Nietzsche would have loathed many essential traits of Nazism, we should also concede that he was not a proponent of modern values and ideals.

The difference between opinion and fact is simple. All opinion is based in belief about events that have happened, are happening, or will happen with the last of these being predictive/expectation. Those events that have happened or are happening are facts. One's opinion about the facts can be true or false. The facts are precisely what makes them so. Facts cannot be either, true or false. They are what makes opinions truth apt. When an opinion is true, it corresponds to the relevant facts. When it is false, it does not. — creativesoul

I read an article a while ago concerning how the interpretation of carpetbaggers - northerners who went down south to help with Reconstruction after the Civil War - had significantly shifted historically. At first they were almost unanimously perceived as shameless, self-serving opportunists who sought to take advantage of the chaos in the postwar South to enrich themselves. That lasted for 30-40 years and then it underwent a change to the notion that, while they may have been deeply flawed human beings who made many mistakes, they nevertheless sought to do good by helping emancipated slaves in a bad situation. And much later, during the 1960's civil rights era, the interpretation altered to the point where they were seen as essentially flawless figures heroically willing to risk their lives to battle forces of racism and corruption on behalf of the oppressed.

Which interpretation is true? What are the facts? How do we separate fact from belief or opinion, fact from value, objective from subjective? Do our current background assumptions and interests influence the way we perceive and understand things? Do they contribute to the way we determine which facts are relevant and which aren't? Etc.

I watched my son's baseball game last week and there was a disputed play at 2nd base, a throw down form the catcher to get the runner stealing. The runner was called out and the fans on one side were enraged by the ruling. The other side's fans agreed with the call and couldn't believe there would even be any argument. My point is that even factual matters - and in this case replay would have shown which side was right - seem subject to dispute based on personal interest, perspective, and a number of additional things which make the ostensibly simple distinction between fact and opinion a bit more complex in all but the most mundane matters (e.g., is there a cat on the mat?), or in scientific matters which disclose beings in a particular way. The same thing can show itself from a number of standpoints, each revealing it from a particular perspective but also hiding other possible aspects. Thinking of Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit or Heidegger's distinction between present-at-hand, ready-to-hand, etc. A hammer can be both a material object investigated scientifically and an everyday object of human use within a context of other pieces of equipment, human projects, etc.

In other words, in many cases truth appears to be more a more complex matter than simple correspondence, especially when involving past events, guiding assumptions, personal interests, and the like which influence the way things show up for us. Imo of course. You may very well be right about Trump and Giuliani - I would extend my personal cynicism towards politicians to include pretty much all of them - but, as mentioned, I think this wider topic of truth/belief/opinion may not be as simple as it appears on the surface. And while I'd concede that they shouldn't be purposely conflated, it is often hard to completely disentangle them. Again, this doesn't necessarily lead to an absurd and imo indefensible form of relativism.

And that's why I said the specific details of the case, the specific facts under dispute, mattered. You seemed to suggest they weren't relevant with regard to the larger issue, but I'll go back and re-read to hopefully avoid further confusion.

People have conflicting opinions about what happened or is happening(the facts). It does not follow from that that truth is relative. That is to conflate truth and opinion. Rudy did just that. Unfortunately, there may be enough other people who use those terms in a similar enough manner to also think that "there is some 'truth'" to Giuliani's claims. — creativesoul

I made that point earlier so I'm not sure why you seem to be ascribing a position to me that I don't hold. Maybe it's just a benign oversight but it doesn't seem truthful at all, which is interesting since you're here defending the sanctity of truth against sophistry.

Here's what I said and you can tell me how it differs from your basic position, in a more general sense than the specific case of Guiliani.

"Some things are obviously less subject to this sort of wiggle room than others, such as determining whether more people attended Obama's inauguration than Trump's, but I think there's some "truth" to Giuliani's claim. Doesn't mean that anything goes, of course, but people don't always see or interpret things in the same way. There's a huge difference, however, between honest disagreement, faulty memory, partial (and biased) perspective, etc. and lying to save your ass or gain some advantage.

Giuliani also said that he is concerned that a Trump interview with Mueller could be set up to catch the president on a possible perjury charge because “truth is relative.”

“They may have a different version of the truth than we do,” Giuliani said.

Thank you for the (possible) contex, Michael.

In many cases I think this statement of Guiliani's is true. I got into a verbal altercation with a fellow employee a while back, for example, and our versions of what transpired - of the "facts" - were significantly different. And I don't think the person I had the issue with was intentionally lying; we just saw things from a different perspective.

Some things are obviously less subject to this sort of wiggle room than others, such as determining whether more people attended Obama's inauguration than Trump's, but I think there's some "truth" to Giuliani's claim. Doesn't mean that anything goes, of course, but people don't always see or interpret things in the same way. There's a huge difference, however, between honest disagreement, faulty memory, partial (and biased) perspective, etc. and lying to save your ass or gain some advantage.