This may be my last foray here, at least for a bit, so I'll probably just sit back and try to be as receptive as possible to others' positions.

Seems like we're going around in circles after 47 pages. I still feel like there's something here that I may be missing.

I found some interesting things in ssu's post, for instance, and would like to think them through.

It's true, Agustino, that's what I was taught in school as a child and believed in sincerely up until my college years, when I was finally exposed to alternative perspectives. This Manichean view was also buttressed in popular culture, among politicians, and to my knowledge was not significantly challenged by any 'mainstream' sources.

The commies and Arabs, for example, were always presented as embodying evil and contrasted with our inherent goodness and purity. Movies like the original Red Dawn, Rocky (forgot the number but the one with Ivan Drago), and many others I watched during my impressionable childhood invariably depicted these 'others' in caricatured ways.

Yet again, it's not so much that communists and Arab terrorists are actually good while we're actually evil--but rather that reality (truth) is much more complex than this simplified and manipulative narrative would have us believe. I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan.

It came as a great shock and sadness to me that reality (objective truth?) didn't square with this image that had been projected upon me, and, as evidenced by this thread, I'm still struggling to come to grips with that radical disconnect between truth and appearance.

Thanks, Michael, I'll check it out.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by.
— Erik
Sure. Neither is it the trait that most people who have ever stepped foot on Earth have lived by. — Agustino

Agreed.

And to repeat for what seems like the hundredth time, this position implies zero support for Trump. It still seems hard for many people to disassociate these separate issues.

But blatant hypocrisy continues unabated, even among the ostensible defenders of a world dedicated to truth against Trump's repeated assaults.

Look at all the politicians up in arms about Russia's meddling in US domestic politics, including many who've supported our continued involvement in shaping the internal affairs of other nations. Were we living in a 'post-truth' world while engaging in clandestine (or overt) efforts to destabilize and influence the internal politics of other nations in favor of our perceived interests? What were those interests? Freedom? Democracy? Justice? Please.

I was never taught that my country supported oppressive dictators on occasion; or that we helped overthrow democratically-elected governments in favor of stooges for our (business) interests; or that we supported militant Islamic groups and cynically told them God was on their side; or that we give more money to Israel than any other nation, while this country has had a policy of forcefully removing native Palestinians from their homes; etc.

What I was taught was that we fought a war of independence against tyranny and for freedom, justice, democracy, and other inspiring things. And further, that these values continue to guide our actions around the globe.

Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth?

These considerations are not meant to suggest moral equivalency between our actions and those of others, but only to challenge the idea that truth has ever been valued as highly as it's being made to appear at the moment, or above other interrelated things like global military and financial interests.

So truth in politics, as I see it, has almost always been subordinated to other, much less ethereal, things. I just don't see how anybody seriously dedicated to truth could think otherwise, although I'm very much open to having this cynical view challenged.

Socrates was put to death for genuinely searching for truth, largely by challenging the collective illusions/prejudices of his community.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by.

Post-truth? Pft. Just another lie.

Yes indeed! This very issue seems a central focus of many of those ancient dialogues.

Those who claim we've moved into a 'post-truth' age assume a (radical) temporal break in which public actors (politicians, journalists, businessmen, etc.) of previous times supposedly held fast to some notion of objective truth, even when misrepresenting it in order to serve their interests.

Banno seemed to suggest that the very notion of objective reality no longer holds sway, and that this development has been caused by various postmodern thinkers; so it is they who are to blame for our current predicament, with Trump being the most egregious example of a general trend. I doubt that Trump has any familiarity with, or interest in, the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and others who have engaged in questioning the idea of a purely objective, disinterested perspective devoid of historically and socially-conditioned guiding presuppositions.

I mentioned one of the sophists in Plato's dialogues who seemed to have a developed understanding of the intimate and difficult relationship between truth, being, power, etc. The point I was suggesting is that this is not a new issue at all. The character of Thrasymachus in The Republic, for instance, shows some striking similarities with the contemptible figure of Donald Trump.

Anyhow, I'll gladly accept the post-truth characterization if someone can show that important political figures in previous ages were genuinely devoted to things like truth, justice, the common good etc. Imperialism, genocide, two world wars, the growing alignment of corporate with political power, etc. should, at the very least, give us pause before acquiescing to this claim.

I've often thought about this issue. One can love the present even with its perceived imperfections, maybe even because of these from a certain perspective, and criticize certain aspects of it at the same time without necessarily being contradictory.

Thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's joyful affirmation of life in its entirety, and willing the eternal recurrence of the same, all the while railing against particular features of the present (as having originated in things that happened long ago) and projecting new possibilities into the future. That tension has, and probably always will, be a feature of human existence until we're all dead.

I certainly like many things about modern life and would not wish to return to some imagined golden era. But I'd also like to take those good things that have been brought about by the hard work of recent centuries and begin to subordinate the economy to what I feel are more elevated and non-instrumental things.

Just my thoughts.

But, yeah, I really need to get some sleep and come back later with a clear head.

Good point, Mongrel. I'd imagine discontent with the the present is a necessary condition for change. I won't say "progress" since that seems a somewhat subjective determination and a debatable point.

Well, those are the guiding values of our materialistic and individualistic commercial civilization. Our politicians, media, educational system, etc. are all geared towards creating consumers who buy the the shit that's produced and marketed to us. Brave New World. All things reduced to exploitable and manipulable resources.

From that standpoint Trump is a symptom rather than a cause of this current world order. I sometimes think individual and collective effort would be better expended on working to shift those values and assumptions which currently hold sway instead of just going after Trump as a particularly obnoxious (and now powerful) individual who happens to have gained so much power.

Of course doing both is good IMO, but going after the man while not questioning the world which produced him is a bit shortsighted. He's got money, fame, women and all the things that are so prized by so many. And probably have been for a long time, if not always. But these values are contingent too, and subject to potentially significant historical shifts.

What if people stopped buying things they didn't really need, and read books instead of watching TV or being on their phones all the time, and freely chose to live a life of relative simplicity, and rejected the dominant values of our society by spending their time doing other things than working and buying stuff and numbing themselves with the latest mindless entertainment? Is this so out of the question? Not going to happen anytime soon, obviously, but we could do little things here and now to prepare the way for future generations.

Maybe we needed a buffoon like Trump to finally show us how absurd this current world really is, and how this has been in the making for much longer than Trump has been around.

Not interested in debating anyone on Trump's merits or lack thereof by the way. Again, my main interests are with broader cultural and ontological issues than with the daily nonsense that's US politics. Not saying this isn't at all important.

Eh, I'm a little delirious and need some sleep.

I don't really want to bring this back to Trump, but as much as I dislike the the guy I don't think he can be accused of the extreme position of neither knowing nor caring about the difference between truth and falsehood.

I remember the debate in which his taxes were brought up--specifically the fact that he had exploited loopholes to avoid paying them--and how he responded with the candid "that makes me smart" comment. I took that as a somewhat surprising and unconventional (especially for a politician) admission that he had in fact lied to the IRS, or, at the very least, had placed his financial self-interest above the truth--and the public good for that matter.

It felt like he was using his penchant for deceit as a personal selling point, wearing it as a badge of honor of sorts, as if that personal trait would make him an exceptional politician once it was channeled away from his personal business endeavors and towards the larger interests of his constituency. Ran completely counter to what one would expect from a more polished career politician, and in an odd and troubling way (IMO) that seemed to appeal to his supporters.

Maybe there's a hint here of the possible difference between liar and bullshitter? As if Trump was suggesting something a bit counter-intuitive and anomalous like: "Come on guys, you know all politicians lie, but they normally lie in a way that screws you over by working against your interests...well, I'm a liar too just like them, but you have my word that I'm going to lie on your behalf if elected, and in the service of your interests."

But subordinating truth to personal interest seems to happen all the time among politicians--a group which taken as a whole seems to draw in ambitious types--and Trump may not be as unique as others would like to believe in this regard.

I think you're on the right track.

I haven't read Frankfurt's book, but my sense of the bullshitter is that he is not just a subjectivist but indifferent to questions of truth and falsity. You say what you say just for the effect, for instance as a move in a negotiation. Might be true, might be false, who cares? I think there is a concern that the bullshitter can naturally morph into a confabulist who isn't even sure when he's telling the truth. — Srap Tasmaner

Fascinating. Hard to even fathom anyone with such a blatant disregard for truth. It would seem like s/he would still have to maintain the appearance of interest in it, if for no other reason than that they need others to sincerely believe that they have been lied to (in Trump's case, for instance, by the mainstream media and other representatives of the so-called "deep state") in order to rally them to the cause.

got ya. I guess it would say that someone who actually freed themselves from the socio-cultural concept of "Truth" they grew up with would be a Platonic ideal that just doesnt' exist in humanity. Even Trump can see that Ivanka is (probably), as opposed to Bannon or Erik Jr, his daughter, and he knows the White House is in Washington, not Valhalla. — Thanatos Sand

Yes exactly right IMO.

The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.

But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

Okay, after re-reading this I do sense some problems with attempting to contrast the two.

For one thing, the attempt to shape public opinion has almost always involved manipulative appeals to the emotions and biases of the crowd. Facts that don't fit the particular agenda of the speaker/writer are conveniently ignored, while those that do lend it support are highlighted, even exaggerated for maximum effect. Nothing new here.

Another problem, as I see it, is in their respective stances towards truth, which I don't see as all that different: If the liar knows the truth yet still peddles falsehoods (or even omits important information), then s/he is ipso facto showing a lack of concern for the truth, and is therefore a bullshitter (by the definition provided). What's the difference here? Is it that the liar suffers pangs of conscience when deceiving whereas the bullshitter is a sociopath totally devoid of that sort of guilt?

And if some things can be considered more important than truth (e.g. social stability, personal and/or national interests, etc.), a position tacitly acknowledged by both, then the distinction seems to break down even more. Is the main difference found in the extent to which each lies? Is it found in the end(s) for which they lie? Both taken together? Something else besides or along with these? One is conscious and the other unconscious of their lies, perhaps? Does an unconscious lie even make sense? Whatever the case, it all starts to look a bit muddled and arbitrary.

Anyhow, the underlying assumption seems to be that the bullshitter is much worse than the liar, and far more dangerous to the public. Liars may not be perfect, but hey, at least they're not bullshitters. If anything, the difference would seem more a matter of degree than of kind: the bullshitter lies to a greater extent, and in the pursuit of more nefarious ends, than the liar.

Just some quick and philosophically naive thoughts/questions on the topic.

I'm still open to the idea that you may be on to something important here (more of an intuition), but I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what it is. In the political arena Trump does seem to represent at least a more brazen disregard for truth than is normally seen, even amongst the professional liars and hypocrites who typically inhabit this world.

I may very well be wrong here, but it seems like the liar believes in objective truth (even while misrepresenting it) while the bullshitter thinks that truth is completely subjective. I think of the debate in terms outlined way back in Plato's Protagoras, where Protagoras famously claims that "man is the measure of all things," which seems to imply an extreme form of relativism.

But at the very least I'd be interested in Banno's fleshing this out a bit more. I read the OP again and perhaps you're right that he's setting up a PoMo strawman.

I found this quote from Karl Rove interesting. Rove was one of GW Bush's advisors, I believe.

"...when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

My main objection to the notion that we're just now moving towards a "post truth" world--especially within context of politics--is that it implies that people in previous eras were committed to some notion of truth untainted with considerations of power, self-interest, etc.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I don't think that has ever been the case, so the term "post-truth" should be replaced by something that more accurately captures the distinction Banno made in the OP between lying and bullshitting.

That line of thinking is interesting, but it does seem more philosophically than politically relevant since politicians (with some exceptions) have always been full of shit. Thanatos Sand gave some good, obvious recent examples of this phenomena as it relates to more respectable presidents than Trump, and that's just scratching the surface.

Wise council, IMO.

Feel free to contact me anytime through PM. Not that I'd be of much help, mind you, but much of what you've written here resonates with me.

I do think that sometimes just making a basic human connection is extremely helpful: To know there's at least one person in this world who can relate to you, at least in part, and in a non-judgmental way. Someone who wont try to get you out of your troubled state right away in favor of a more 'normal' one, but will instead jump in with you (as much as possible) and be willing to share your pain. Doesn't seem like we're completely alone in our craziness, fortunately, and that in itself can be a comforting thought.

And yeah, it's extremely hard to find people like that whom you can trust. I feel fortunate to have made a couple good friends over the past few years--in addition of course to my wife and kids--whom I can pretty much be myself around and confide in without reservation.

Others would probably consider the above horrible advice by the way.

Anyhow I think you're right in your belief that you could benefit from engaging in activities, even if they're the trivial and mundane sort. I find that just being goofy with my boys, or playing catch with them, or watching a silly romantic movie with my wife, can give me a much needed break from my thoughts.

I've actually come to see these seemingly petty things as being of the utmost significance rather than just temporary diversions from more serious considerations. Zen sort of wisdom, I guess: "Magical Power, Marvelous Action...Chopping Wood, Carrying Water."

That probably sounds absurd to many people, but after going through so much inner turmoil I think I get the gist of it. Quieting the mind and engaging the world need not be thoughtless, but can be indicative of the most profound insight. We're most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of a child at play -- Heraclitus.

So while this world appears strange and often threatening, it's also pretty damn amazing. In my better moments I'm extremely appreciative of the fact that I was born, even if this 'I' and the world remain a bit (or more than a bit) enigmatic. Enlightened stupidity, perhaps. Or maybe just plain stupidity.

Apologies though if none of this was the least bit edifying.

You actually sound pretty sane to me, Wosret.

Much of what you wrote here seems pretty consistent with the constant internal dialogue that I'd imagine other intelligent introverts (hard to imagine an unintelligent one) with overly active minds experience.

Feeling isolated and alienated from the majority who seem to just kinda go through life without fundamentally questioning the values and beliefs that were inculcated into them during their formative years, and which now appear to be instinctual.

Having friends and careers and hobbies and basically doing what they've been told normal, healthy people do, and then eventually dying, preferably after a nice long retirement. Sure, to them you're probably 'weird,' or even insane.

That caricature isn't meant to disparage the crowd, since they really are the healthy and successful ones, but theirs isn't the path for all of us, and ideally we exceptions should learn to embrace the fact that we're different. They need us and we need them.

The sad fact IMO is that this current world--with it's heavy emphasis on things like speed and efficiency and money and results--doesn't really value people like you (or me), and so we won't get that validation we desire. We're not typically good company or organization guys, either, so that route to social recognition and career success is cut off from us, too.

May be an exaggeration, but seems like our 'type' is getting weeded out, and just when we're needed most. What would a Socrates or a Nietzsche would be doing today? Not suggesting we're anywhere near them in ability or intelligence, at least not me, but there is perhaps a certain similarity in disposition and temperament.

But anyway, you seem to have some critical distance from your thoughts, which would appear to be an important differentiating element between any diagnosis of sanity or insanity. You may suffer from a bit of paranoia regarding other peoples' (dis)honesty and intentions, but some caution and skepticism seems fairly reasonable to me.

You're alive, and life itself seems strange for some of us. Almost overwhelmingly strange at times--the whole 'philosophy begins in wonder' thing, and very few of us have a genuine interest in philosophy.

I'm obviously not a psychologist, or even particularly adept at philosophy, so take my own somewhat cathartic ramblings here with a grain of salt, and hopefully you'll be able to find a 'professional' who can help you, if indeed you think there's something wrong.

I think I understand the spirit behind your inquiries on grades and salaries, Meta, but I'm not quite sure what a viable alternative would be which could entirely negate inequality. Nor am I sure that that hypothetical system would even be desirable, especially if it came at the expense of human freedom.

While I do appreciate the attempt to overcome the many injustices and 'false consciousness' of human beings so characteristic in a capitalist consumer economy, is completely doing away with all forms of competition and equitable compensation a realistic alternative? Not trying to strawman here but that seems to be the implication of your criticisms.

Perhaps there's a mean between the two extremes: one which would temper the inhumanity and 'defects' of a market-oriented society--one in which every aspect of life seems subordinated to economic considerations--without completely negating the admirable attempt to gain recognition from others through the development of certain skills and much strenuous effort. That latter characteristic seems a very human desire, and one that some (e.g. Francis Fukuyama) posit as the primary reason for communism's ultimate failure. That hypothesis sounds plausible to me, at least as a partial explanation among other contributing factors.

IMO capitalism is certainly debased in many ways, but it does allow for a relatively benign outlet of sorts for human beings to channel their ambition and energy. Maybe a shift in communal values could redirect those energies in ways that would ultimately be more aligned with some sense of the 'common good' than we currently experience. For example, one not strictly beholden to material things but more appreciative of artistic and ethical endeavors. But we'd have to first formulate where we'd like to go and then how to go about getting there. I doubt there'd be much agreement on the matter, even amongst staunch anti-capitalists.

I'm sure there are free market advocates who would argue that the above is precisely what happens when people are left to pursue their goals free from government intervention; the self-interest of individuals eventually leads to admittedly unintended consequences which do benefit most, if not all (even Marx credits capitalism for its many achievements), at least in a material sense. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' sort of thing.

But what alternative to the current system did you have in mind, Meta? I find the question both interesting and pressing. Hard to reconcile freedom and equality but I'd definitely like to live in system which would be more equal than it is at present, and could achieve this while allowing freedom to flourish. I love stories about people who freely choose to compensate their employees more than is required by law, or who freely choose a life in which they make less money but find more satisfaction in making a difference in other peoples' lives, and other such things.

P.S. Your English is fine.

I'm almost positive Thorongil's reasons for including Heraclitus are much different than mine, but I mainly appreciate H's insight into the nature of man, specifically his notion that our being is intimately bound up with the divine Logos.

He was one of the first Western thinkers (along with Parmenides and perhaps Anaximander) to recognize and articulate--albeit in obscure hints--the so-called ontological difference between beings (the many) and Being (the One). The one is symbolized by fire, sun, lightning, etc. which lights up specific beings in their differences while withdrawing "itself" from attention ("nature loves to hide"), even though most interpreters posit this as his theory concerning the primary substance of the cosmos along the lines of what many other pre-Socratics were after.

This is an interpretation heavily indebted to Heidegger, something which will turn a lot of people away, but once that ontological difference is grasped most of Heraclitus' fragments become much more accessible than they were previously.

This one gathers together the many, and we as human beings stand in a privileged relationship to "it" despite the fact that we typically don't understand ourselves in this sense, and instead prefer to "fill our bellies like beasts" and engage in other sorts of (what Heraclitus perceived to be) low pleasures unworthy of our true nature.

Others may point to his focus on impermanence, the unity of opposites, his pan(en)theism, and such things as being important and influential philosophical contributions-- some which are indeed very similar to Lao Tzu's pronouncements (as I understand them)--but that bringing to language of the proper essence of man is something simpler yet even more profound IMO. What's more important than knowing your "true" self? Philosophy as a way of being, possibly even the highest way of being.

Lots of conjecture, obviously, and there's much I don't understand about Heraclitus, and probably never will.

I guess it depends upon ones morals. I like one on one. Others don't. No big deal to me one way or another since that is their agreement. — Rich

This sounds like a very reasonable position to take, and neither side in this debate should try to impose its standards on the other, especially when it comes to such a deeply personal issue as this one.

I've been in a committed relationship for nineteen years now and don't feel oppressed in the least. Nor do I feel it's been a destructive force in my life. That's not to suggest that some monogamous relationships aren't all the negative things outlined above by WISDOMfromPO-MO, maybe even the majority of them.

But I'll be damned if some young student--likely short on life experience yet enamored with the latest intellectual trends they picked up from their hip college professors--is going to try to dictate how I should live my life. Yeah I know that's a bit of a caricature and a cheap shot to boot, but the level of arrogance required to assume you know what's best for everyone concerning intimate relationships is really astounding. The same goes for thoughtless partisans of monogamy, too, since both sides seem equally beholden to abstractions over the complexity of actual people and existence more generally.

I've recently distanced myself quite a bit from the extreme wing of progressivism precisely because of these types of attacks; however sincere and well-intentioned the people advocating for them may be, they ultimately turn out to be just as (if not more) dictatorial and oppressive than the typically inflexible conservative positions they seek to overthrow.

We can and should point out social injustices where we see them, we should try to persuade people to see things from a different perspective (preferably IMO one which eschews the values of consumerism for more 'elevated' ones), and do other such things to make a difference in the way people in our communities think and act. But we should also show some humility in the endeavor and not assume our position is the final word on the matter.

Anyhow, adults should have the freedom to choose their spouses and what type of relationship they're going to have. That goes equally for those who prefer an open relationship. If it works for them, that's great, but that doesn't mean their experience will match others. The opposite of course is also true.

All that said, I eagerly await any spirited attacks on monogamous relationships that may arise here. Perhaps being married I'm too personally invested in the matter to keep an open mind, but I'll try my best! I'll likely watch this unfold from the sidelines--if it even get's going--and not participate. I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable in these types of debates surrounding things like patriarchy, racism, and the like. Without too much exaggeration I feel like they've become somewhat akin to the old religious inquisitions: you're not only wrong if you don't agree with and adhere to the dogmatic pronouncements of the prophets of 'progress', but a sinner, guilty, an advocate of evil. Maybe the quasi-religious component is what draws a certain type of person into this sphere. I can honestly see the attraction in it.

Heraclitus - Fragments
Plato - Republic
Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
Rousseau - Emile
Hegel - Philosophy of Right
Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols
Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations
Heidegger - Being and Time
Heidegger - Collected Essays (specifically Letter on Humanism and Question Concerning Technology)

I'll add JS MIll's On Liberty as my bonus pick.

Yes I agree. There are different shades of meaning and interpretation to the question. Thanks.

However, I'm looking for a black person who's a white supremacist. Either s/he exists or not.

If s/he exists how does s/he deal with the obvious contradiction of such a worldview?

If s/he doesn't exist, why? As you mentioned in your post there are so many hues to race and culture. Surely, in this smorgasbord of possibilities there must be such a person. — TheMadFool

Like others, I think I'm having a hard time understanding your question, MadFool. Speaking for myself, I find the notion of white supremacy to be extremely confused. It would obviously involve the belief that white people are superior to non-whites in some way(s). But what would these be?

The very notion of 'whiteness'--which seems so obvious before thinking it through--appears to be a vague and largely artificial concept, which upon further reflection typically leads to more confusion than clarity.

Is whiteness strictly biological? Or, as I conjectured previously, is it more indicative of specific cultural traits? Something like a European civilization which combines elements of ancient Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christian religion, modern science and rationality, etc? Is that what we're referring to when we speak of whiteness? If so that's problematic too, once we consider that the tradition is not a unified and completed whole, but one that's fluid, contradictory, and exhibiting influences (e.g. Christianity) that clearly did not originate with Europeans.

So in the end there's no stable 'white' identity to be found--on any grounds--and therefore the notion of white supremacy doesn't make much sense. Any general notion of whiteness must ignore massive differences in terms of language, culture, region, history, religion, occupation, education, socio-economic status, and many, many other things.

Same goes for the notion of blackness, although a sense of shared identity based upon a common struggle against oppression could ground that racial identity in ways not normally available to white people. Just seems like one aspect of our being is highlighted and elevated to a place of prominence that it may not deserve. That being said, these abstractions have had concrete consequences on peoples' lives, and in that sense have become a part of our shared reality.

But as a white guy from southern California, do I have more in common with a black person who lives nearby and works with me, or a white person from, say, the Deep South who inhabits a world vastly different from mine?

And your example of Django may not be the best one to use, although I'll admit I'm going off your brief description of the relationship between two characters and haven't seen the movie. Does the black slave love his white master as an individual man he's grown close to on a personal level? or rather as a man qua member of a race he perceives to be superior?

Whatever the case, it would appear that the hypothetical black person you're looking for would have to first essentialize whiteness and blackness--in ways that probably won't stand up to scrutiny--before moving on to posit the superiority of the one over the other. He can't identify with the master on biological grounds so there must be something else going on.

Again, I think the only realistic possibility of resolving the contradictory worldview would be to separate the biological from the metaphysical. The 'black white supremacist' could look at his racial makeup as being of little significance, while freely choosing to identify with what he finds to be a superior culture that he associates with people whose skin color normally (but not necessarily) happens to be white. In other words, his identity is grounded in culture rather than race.

In the end it all seems a bit arbitrary and confused. People can and do concoct strange reasons to believe strange things. I'm surely not impervious to this tendency, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

But please provide more detailed info regarding what you think whiteness entails, and the possible reasons you could imagine a black person would have for identifying with whites who oppress him and others of similar racial background. Perhaps you have something in mind much simpler than the muddled mess I just created?

The only nauseating self-righteousness, and nauseating dishonesty, is yours, as you were clearly emphasizing "anti-White" rhetoric. — Thanatos Sand

That Thanatos would assume that I was ONLY referring to anti-white rhetoric in what I wrote, and 'clearly' so, simply because I interpreted what he said in previous posts as evidence of demonization in general, is IMO crazy. Literally. Here's what I said:

Also, I don't think harboring deep grudges against people of other races automatically leads to taking immediate, violent and retributory action against them. This just isn't a feasible course of action for an individual or a group to take, especially among those socially and politically marginalized, unless of course you're willing to die yourself or be sent to prison for a very long time.I would imagine, however, that the first step in the direction of violence is to demonize or dehumanize your perceived enemy. That much seems obvious, and some of the rhetoric I'm witnessing these days tends in that direction, even yours here which vilifies white people to a certain extent, and perhaps rightly so given our dark history. European Antisemitism predated the Holocaust, for instance, and the latter was only possible once these historical resentments against Jews became aligned with political power capable of acting upon them. — Erik

The topic that interested me was whether racial animus--which I pointed out involved 'both' sides--is increasing or decreasing at present. I even said on a couple occasions that I hope he was right in his estimation that it was decreasing. These and other conciliatory comments were conveniently ignored, as were others such as this:

I'll acknowledge the obvious inhumane treatment that non-whites have been subjected to, I will search out wisdom and excellence form any source, regardless of skin color, and do other things that I feel are consistent with the desire to increase racial harmony and understanding. — Erik

Thoughts such as these (in hindsight somewhat trite, but written in a spirit of sincerity) are, according to the superior wisdom of Thanatos, indicative of my 'troubling views clearly simmering beneath.'

Anyhow that's it for me. Just wanted to expose him for making wild assumptions based upon certain things I said (and didn't say) which he felt implied other, predictably more nefarious things. What's even more upsetting is that he had the nerve to hide behind the 'I never said that' routine when things he IMO clearly implied (e.g. that Efram was a white supremacist) were mentioned.

Yes, clearly so. That was perhaps the most uncharitable, and unnecessarily hostile, reading of my posts that I've ever seen in the 15 years or so of posting both here and at the old Philosophy Forum. But apparently I'm the one with questionable reading skills.

I will acknowledge that he (she?) made a few interesting and valid points in previous posts, but it's best the conversation ended quickly with our petty digs at each other.

You want me to quote the numerous times in this thread where I made very obvious acknowledgements that racism against POC exists, and that the grievances against white people are legitimate? Why did you ignore those comments? Probably assuming I was being disingenuous. I wasn't. I don't have all the answers, unlike you, and will gladly acknowledge that too. Others can judge who the pissy, self-righteous snob is in this conversation.

Kinda pissed to be honest that you so grossly misrepresented what I said, and clearly didn't make a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue, or offer empirical support for your position. My points were anecdotal, admittedly, but your equating of what most POC think about white people--and vice versa--based upon the fact that they mostly don't attack them, is questionable IMO. Furthermore, I don't feel I should have to state the obvious, i.e., that white people vilify POC all the time.

But let me ask you one thing: If white people aren't mostly attacking POC, does that mean that racism is non-existent among the vast majority of white people? Why not extend that logic to them by using attacks as the standard with which to judge racial attitudes? Contrary to your imagining that I'm a racist., I say that racism is still prevalent against non-whites, and this despite the fact that it doesn't typically express itself in overt violence.

There's an obvious misunderstanding here, which is fine, but accusing me of racial bias for suggesting that racial animosity-- on BOTH sides, which I stated originally--may be on the rise is a conversation stopper. You in your nauseating self-righteousness can read whatever you want into my posts.

There are certainly anecdotal occurrences like this, but it doesn't change what I wrote. Japanese Americans aren't mostly attacking Whites for the internments. Blacks aren't mostly attacking Whites for their outrageous and still terrible treatment of them, and Native Americans arent' mostly spending their time attacking them for the holocaust White Americans and the White American US governments levied on them. — Thanatos Sand

I do hope you're right about this, Thanatos Sand, but it just seems to me that with the presidencies of both Obama and now Trump we've become more racially polarized as a society than was the case when I was a kid in the 1980's. Not that things were perfect then by any stretch (e.g. Rodney King and the LA Riots, OJ Simpson Trial, etc.), and it's quite possible that some of this increased awareness of racial tension on my part could be due to the abundance of partisan and manipulative news sources, which pander to the prejudices of their intended audience through the frequent use of confirmation bias. But I still think we've regressed a bit overall in that time frame, and that racial relations are getting worse rather than better.

Also, I don't think harboring deep grudges against people of other races automatically leads to taking immediate, violent and retributory action against them. This just isn't a feasible course of action for an individual or a group to take, especially among those socially and politically marginalized, unless of course you're willing to die yourself or be sent to prison for a very long time. I would imagine, however, that the first step in the direction of violence is to demonize or dehumanize your perceived enemy. That much seems obvious, and some of the rhetoric I'm witnessing these days tends in that direction, even yours here which vilifies white people to a certain extent, and perhaps rightly so given our dark history. European Antisemitism predated the Holocaust, for instance, and the latter was only possible once these historical resentments against Jews became aligned with political power capable of acting upon them.

Anyhow, if you're privy to any recent studies comparing racial attitudes over the past few decades then I'd like to take a look at them, and will happily admit my error if you're right. I'd honestly love to be contradicted on this matter and to be in agreement with you that, on the whole, POC have forgiven us for what our ancestors did to their ancestors, and for what we continue to do to them each day. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of being a white guy. I'll acknowledge the obvious inhumane treatment that non-whites have been subjected to, I will search out wisdom and excellence form any source, regardless of skin color, and do other things that I feel are consistent with the desire to increase racial harmony and understanding.

I'll admit mine is probably a naive and simplistic view, but one of the great things about living in a city like Los Angeles is that you're exposed to a wide variety of people from different racial and cultural backgrounds each day. This being the case, generalizations tend to lose their force as you come across kind and intelligent people of all races, and of course their opposites. This says nothing of systemic racism, which needs to be acknowledged and dealt with as well. For what it's worth the one group I dislike more than any others are rich, stuffy, entitled white people, but even here I have to catch myself in the act of making hasty assumptions about them. I guess I'm much more class conscious than race conscious. This would probably be a different matter if I weren't white.

I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different characters, or personalities could say "fuck you" to the system. To vote for someone simply because that person says "fuck you" to the system is to completely neglect that person's character and personality in making your choice in who to vote for, and this is to shirk your democratic responsibility. It is to say "fuck you" to the system with actions.

So if we go beyond the act of saying "fuck you" to the system, to ask why does one say 'fuck you" to the system, we see that president Trump is completely phony. He said "fuck you" to the system simply because he wanted to get votes from people like you and me, who wanted to say "fuck you" to the system. Since his intent was to get himself elected president, this was the goal and motivation behind him saying "fuck you" to the system, he really holds "the system" in high esteem. He just said "fuck you" to the system to get himself into the system which he admired so much. Anyone who demonstrates such a strong desire to be president of the United States of America, going through all the effort required to get there, must actually have very high respect for "the system". So Donald Trump saying "fuck you" to the system was just an act of deception to get people who want to say "fuck you" to the system, to give him what he wanted most, to be the president of the United States of America. — Metaphysician Undercover

Holy crap I haven't been around for a bit and missed this. Seems I struck a nerve.

I'll play devil's advocate for a minute if you're still around and argue that this 'democratic' system has largely been appropriated by corporate interests aligned with both major parties, and centered around a combination of neoliberal economic policies with American military interventionism. This military-industrial complex, or whatever you want to call its current manifestation, is clearly not aligned with the will of a large segment of the US population.

So there's a massive disconnect that seems obvious now, and one that cannot be entirely reduced to the racism, sexism, etc. of Trump voters, even though these elements often do exist within that demographic. No, there are legitimate economic and social grievances that IMO we'd do well to take seriously.

If that wedge does exist between voters and political representatives, then 'shirking your democratic duty' could be interpreted as justified and possibly even efficacious to a certain extent, if its opposite involves giving your consent to the corrupt and violent system as it currently exists. Democrats sadly turned away from supporting unions and other working class struggles under the leadership of Bill Clinton. Bernie Sanders seems to have tried to bring the Dems back into their traditional role as the genuine representatives of working class interests, and had a good deal of success doing so,

I just mentioned that this could be a useful tactic to a certain degree, and by that I mean it would seem to make sense for the representatives of a system (used interchangeably with 'political establishment') shocked by the victory of a relative outsider, to make some much needed adjustments. Hopefully this temporary setback will lead to it being more attuned and responsive to the will of the multitude of voters who voiced their collective displeasure with a resounding 'FUCK YOU'.

I'm looking for for the silver lining to this travesty which is the Trump presidency. I'm also interested in larger cultural trends, specifically those which precipitated the creation of an electorate which has lost faith in a political process appropriated by financial interests, and IMO lacking much sense of a 'common good' which looks beyond the immediate enrichment of corporate interests who've appropriated the organs of state to do their bidding.

That's my (somewhat) quick and oversimplified take. We're all trying to make sense of the American political landscape right now, and I'm not sure anyone really knows what going on beyond the belief that we're in a stage of transition.

But yeah, I agree with yours and others' negative opinion of Trump. I'm dealing with very intelligent people here and I expect everyone to be able to make the important distinction between criticism of 'the system' and support of Trump. Let's not thoughtlessly conflate the two, as the supporters of 'the system' would like us to do, and which in turn discredits valid criticisms by associating these with the person of Donald Trump. It's a manipulative tactic, but one that seems to be working rather well thus far as evidenced by this thread.

And the fact Blacks, and Native Americans, and Latinos, and the Japanese Americans have forgiven Whites and, for the most part, do not hold it against us for what our ancestors did and some of us still do, shows Blacks and other POC have shown great sympathy towards us. — Thanatos Sand

Not sure if this is the case. There's a ton of racial resentment--admittedly on 'both' sides these days--based upon historical grievances.

Identity politics has IMO contributed quite a bit to this phenomena of increased racial antagonisms. In fact, during the US presidential election I heard many a Democrat express absolute joy at the coming demise of the political power and influence of white middle and lower class voters. They often made no attempt to conceal the one group they do not represent, i.e. older white men, by conspicuously failing to mention them among those they do represent: blacks, Latinos, young people, women, etc. Reminds me of Carl Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction (as I understand it) as constituting the essence of politics.

That's just an observation and not at all meant to absolve white people from the legitimate grievances (both past and present) that often motivate POC to undertake political, social, cultural, and economic action against what they perceive to be an unjust status quo still largely dominated by those old white men.

may sound crazy or stupid or both (TheMadFool remember?) but my question is, is/was there an opposite to this general truth? In other words, was/is there a black man/woman who sympathized with white folks? To take it to the extreme, was/is there a black man who was/is a white supremacist? — TheMadFool

I think the question makes more sense if you separate race from culture, and assume that there are such relatively stable things as black and white culture.

If that distinction is made, then there are clearly black people who criticize general cultural trends within the wider 'black community' in favor of more traditional stereotypes of white (i.e. Western European) culture.

Of course race and culture are often aligned and therefore conflated. But we obviously see cases where white people identify more with black culture and, as mentioned, those in which black people identify with the dominant values and beliefs of white culture.

I prefer to see these identities as fluid rather than fixed, and also intermingling in such as way that all of us--regardless of ancestry--somehow benefit from being exposed to differing perspectives.

I answered 'maybe' and 'other,' but I'll acknowledge my inability to articulate any definite position on the matter, other than to say that I do think any relevant addressing of the topic should start fresh, and by that I mean with a radical re-assessment of human existence.

I find many of the assumptions made about us and our world (e.g. subject/object split) and God (e.g. God as an extant being) to be questionable, and this debate almost always seems to move within a particular sphere of understanding in which guiding assumptions about our way of being are taken for granted, and these in turn frame the alternatives.

Tentatively, though, I'd classify myself as a pantheist--or even panentheist--if I had to categorize myself, and, if I'm not mistaken, these can be found among adherents of all the religions you offered as options, although typically as marginalized and persecuted minorities within them.

Wasn't it Schopenhauer who referred to pantheism as 'atheism with a happy face,' or something of that sort?

But it doesn't it seem, @StreetlightX, that the term 'social construct' is tinged with a certain sense of arbitrariness? Even more than arbitrariness, actually, but downright calculated maliciousness, especially when paired with typical hierarchical relations of power and domination that characterize almost every social and political configuration?

My familiarity with these issues is very limited, but I have read a bit of Foucault (and a lot of Heidegger and Nietzsche, from whom he apparently drew inspiration), and I also found Edward Said's Orientalism to be extremely thought-provoking. I read it many years ago, but he seemed to find sinister motives behind the construction of particular 'truths' that oftentimes try to pass themselves off as detached scholarship. I was under the impression that this was a seminal work within the postmodern canon.

But yeah, this may be an egregious mischaracterization of a diverse 'movement' that cannot be so easily pinned down. I do genuinely appreciate any additional insight.

So I'm not sure how to answer the poll, as a lot of what passes for "hard left" today is not part of my political outlook, even though Marx is my go-to guy. I've been called a conservative on several occasions, on this forum and elsewhere. I admit I'm attracted to conservatism despite fundamentally disagreeing with it--I think maybe because it's not culturally mainstream, such that independence of thought sometimes seems more common among conservatives, which is a big change in the intellectual landscape. — jamalrob

I can relate to this. Generally speaking, I would say that I'm on the Left when it comes to economic issues but tend towards the Right when it comes to cultural issues.

I feel that social conservatism--albeit with many qualifications that contrast it with what people normally understand by the term these days--is entirely compatible with a 'progressive' economic (and racial) agenda, and I'm a bit surprised this sort of hybrid isn't more common.

I would also say that I find critiques of unbridled capitalism coming form the 'communitarian' Right to be perhaps even more potent and insightful than those coming from the political Left. But to add even more confusion to the issue, I'm also a firm proponent of individuals' freedom of thought and speech and other such ideas commonly associated with classical liberalism.

Ideally, I guess, I would prefer it if people freely chose to be align their lives and well-being with other people who form their larger social/historical community, rather than being forced into such behavior through the government coercion.

A jumbled mess of seemingly conflicting views on the surface, no doubt, but intuitively appealing to me and not at all inconsistent or illogical. I'll readily concede its implausibility as things stand right now, and for a long time ahead.

Thanks Willow, I'll process your post for a bit before responding.