I would also quickly add, Agustino, that I think your 'conservative' ethics is ripe for the type of highly functional sociopaths who can successfully pass themselves off as virtuous while actually being the opposite. Socrates was prescient, I think, in pointing out the paradox of the genuinely good man coming across as evil while those who are evil often come across as good. Go ahead and remind me, What happened to Socrates and Jesus? Yeah, they were put to death.

Plato's meditations seem fixated on justifying philosophy--which should result in a life of virtue--in the face of the impractical and even dangerous possibilities it contains for its practitioners. My guess is that Epicurus would have made many concessions to the dominant social and political forces that Socrates (and Jesus) was unwilling to make, and that the reason for this could be traced to their respective understandings of human existence and, more specifically, to the existence or non-existence of a 'soul' whose needs can be at odds (at least on occasion) with the desires of the body. But this is obviously conjecture on my part.

Well, I believe that I'm a conflicted being with conflicting impulses. Plato's tripartite division of the soul makes more than a bit of sense to me and I, like most people I'd imagine, often struggle with controlling my natural desires. There's a 'higher' and a 'lower' part to me, it seems, and while I agree that the physical and the spiritual are intimately related, I know which part each aspect is drawn to.

I stand firm at present in my belief that rejecting the 'spiritual' element (not to be confused with belief in the immortality of my individual soul, or a desire for an afterlife of everlasting bliss) would ipso facto drain the 'higher' values of much of their significance. I would feel no deep pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my wife, I would not willingly sacrifice my life for my children without hesitation, or even more unpractically, for an abstraction like freedom of thought and belief. I would probably seek happiness in the moderate satisfaction of physical desires and other pleasant diversions, but this would not lead to the type of elevated love that Jesus showed for others, or that Socrates willingly chose to die for. They didn't posit other worlds either; no, the 'spiritual' is here and now and all around us.

Anyhow I'll try to respond in more detail later though after chewing on this a bit. I intuitively feel that Dostoyevsky was right: if God doesn't exist then anything is permitted. For me God could mean the non or supra-material aspect of life which gives meaning and significance to the tangible world beyond human projections. If the ancient Greek atomists had a conception of matetr which allowed for this, then count me a materialist in their sense.

What leads to happiness and well-being? A life of moderation and the implementation of other virtues? To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. Physically at least. Now my counter-point would be to smuggle in a resulting spiritual unhappiness from such behavior. I feel guilty for cheating on my wife, for instance, despite the physical pleasure that doing so gave me at the moment.

But this of course involves a non-material principle: I betrayed the trust and loyalty that my wife placed in me and which should have prevented me from succumbing to the temptation of physical pleasure. Furthermore, I should have done so for the sake of (at the very least) a mental contentment that comes from knowing that I can constrain my desires and natural impulses, and this affirms my belief that I'm more than a mere beast out to to satisfy its natural desires. I see no reason why a hedonism, albeit of a sort mitigated by 'reason' and good sense, should necessarily lead to a life of virtue. A genuinely virtuous life, like that embodied by Socrates (and contrasted with the appearance of virtue of the sophists), would appear to be quite painful in fact relative to the other less principled and more practical human beings.

Same thing with friendship. Without a belief in anything more valuable than my own happiness and well-being, why not just use other human beings in a utilitarian way to the extent that they can assist my attempt to achieve things like bodily health, longevity, etc. I see no grounds here to do unnatural things like lay down my life, or sacrifice my own well-being, for the sake of another person, and I would not expect them to do so for me if they were guided by similar considerations. And friendship does not make everyone stronger. It depends upon the type of friends one hangs around, and the values they adhere to.

But again, I've probably built up a straw man due to my ignorance of the Epicureans. I'll look deeper into it. It just seems in principle to result in the type of atheistic pragmatism that I already mentioned could reasonably align itself with social conservatism. No disrespect intended for the likes of Epicurus. I'm making certain assumptions based upon my limited knowledge of his work. I just cannot fathom how materialism could lead to virtue in anything more than a practical way. And things founded on practicality can shift depending upon the given context. Spiritual values seem much less prone to the sort of instability which I take to be characteristic of the a life guided by considerations of my own physical well-being.

You may very well be correct, but in what sense does the notion of piety have any legitimate meaning in a materialistic universe devoid of intrinsic purpose or value? Seems an extremely odd and illogical combination to me. Even the Stoics had a sense of some divine principle governing the cosmos, even if not a personal God in the Judeo-Christian sense. But please enlighten me and I will gladly stand corrected.

This seems a little one-sided. It may indeed be an accurate depiction of the general trend among members of the US Republican Party leadership, with their sham religiosity, their hypocritical patriotism (while gladly outsourcing American jobs for the sake of their true God and only loyalty--money) and other such things.

But dumbing the masses down in order to manipulate them is also a tactic increasingly being used by liberals these days. I spoke with a young employee of mine yesterday about racism, and she said she has an unqualified dislike of white people because 'they've done a lot of bad things'. We have, of course, but when pressed to provide concrete examples she had nothing, not even the obvious cases of slavery, genocide, etc. She was uncritically parroting what she'd been taught in her 'progressive' public high school. So even the Left tries to inculcate a certain set of simplified and dogmatic assumptions about the world that are to go unchallenged. Anyone who does try to inject some balance, context and/or nuance is accused of racism, sexism, and other such things.

So I see both sides as gladly subordinating truth to their agenda, of demonizing those who disagree with their Manichean worldview, and off attempting to stifle contrary opinions (as being anti-American in the case of conservatives and the aforementioned racist, sexist, fascist in the case of progressives). This being the case, I have fled from my previous attachment with the Left and now have a much more independent outlook on things that contains elements of progressivism and conservatism. In other words I've distanced myself from party loyalty and rigid ideology. I humbly suggest that others do the same.

I remember becoming a social conservative first, and a theist second, and yet most folks claim to go the other way around. Why is there an association of religion and social conservatism? To me it would make sense to be the other way - if someone can first accept social conservatism - ie natural morality - they can accept religion much more easily... So what do you think? Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why? — Agustino

Interesting, I see genuine religion as being largely (if not wholly) at odds with nature. Especially 'nature' as conceived of, and glorified by, someone like Nietzsche; in other words in a non-Romantic way. I'm referring, for example, to the emphasis on overcoming egotism (which seems 'natural') for the sake of a much broader conception of the self-- or maybe even deconstructing the illusions that the self is prone to identify with--as found in the lives of figures such as Socrates, Jesus and Buddha. To acknowledge your ignorance, to love your enemy, to sympathize with rather than condemn, etc. do not at all seem to be natural human sentiments. I do however think these views are 'conservative' in one very important sense: they reject materialistic conceptions of life which eschew any and every 'spiritual' principle. And by doing this, they at least tacitly acknowledge something 'higher' than the satisfaction of those bodily and quite natural desires for food, sex, power, etc.

Now of course religions are diverse, with some probably being more aligned with natural impulses than others. And there have been clear appropriations of these exemplary spiritual figures which have dragged down the sublime and elevated aspects of their teachings to the level of practical (and cynical) social and political utility. But that distinction having been made, I do see authentic religiosity as being more in step with radical modes of thinking and acting that reject the status quo. Does that mean they're 'progressive'? No--at least not if that term is understood and associated with the guiding assumptions of modern liberal progressives. Relative to these things, religion in the qualified sense does appear to be socially conservative for the reason mentioned above.

It would also (hypothetically) respect the dignity of the individual while simultaneously acknowledging the intimate interconnection we as individuals have with others in our community. We're more than a mere aggregate of autonomous egos, although this does not necessarily preclude notions of selfhood and individual freedom. Resolving this libertarian/communitarian tension in my own thinking is something I'd like to explore in more depth. Seems like Aristotle had some interesting things to say in his Ethics and Politics, as did Hegel in various places from what I've read thus far. I even like JS Mill's musings on the topic in On Liberty, despite the fact that I don't agree with many of his other social or political positions.

I have ambiguous views regarding religion and social conservatism. I'm not a theist or conservative in any traditional sense, but I do reject the reductive tendencies of materialism that most progressives seem committed to. This has relevance for my tentative and developing views on a broad range of issues that make me sympathetic to certain tenets of social conservatism as typically understood, and supplemented by my more idiosyncratic way of conceiving it: I am pro-marriage (absolute commitment which could involve two men, two women, or the traditional man and woman), anti-abortion (with exceptions), anti-consumerist, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, etc. Basically, I cannot align myself with any movement, political party or 'ism' of any sort which I feel fails to acknowledge the at least latent profundity of human existence--or existence (being) more generally--and reduces all things, human and non-human alike, to the one-dimensional level of exploitable resource. That's the nightmarish world in which 'we live and move and have our being' at present, and one which I feel should be overcome.

I would also add that this sort of conservatism does not necessarily look back nostalgically for examples of order and social stability to imitate, but rather looks ahead to a new era of human existence; one that may have been glimpsed by previous thinkers (and is thus indebted to the past in this sense), but has yet to be implemented within the culture at large. So in a way radical revolutionary and social conservative may converge, with the caveat that this alliance entails a new understanding of these terms that's freed them from their current associations. So in a paradoxical way, conservatism can even be utopian (again in a qualified sense). Or maybe it's best to leave behind terms such as 'conservative,' 'progressive,' 'religious' and the like altogether, since the associations they conjure up seem much too strong to allow for their re-appropriation.

But yeah, I obviously have a bunch of muddled intuitions on this very interesting topic that aren't fully formulated as of yet. I do think one could be both an atheist and a social conservative in a pragmatic way that seeks the usefulness of human virtue for the maintenance of collective cohesion and stability. The ground seems a bit flimsy though without some 'higher' conception of reality which includes, but is not exhausted by, its material component. Man does not live by bread alone.

What about someone like me? I freely admit that I am biased against the Left and use all weapons in my arsenal against them. — Agustino

You're definitely an exception to the general rule. I'll grant you that, and also point out that I appreciate your honesty on this topic.

Well I don't think I do. I am fully aware that many of my attacks on the Left and caricatures, and rhetorical points. But I make them nevertheless. Why? Because I treat it like a war - any tactics and strategies that will ensure victory, should be used. The Left has been winning because of using such tactics. Thus, the Right, in order to usurp the Left, must use the same tactics. The Left won't be able to defend, because they claim they don't use such tactics, while in fact using them. The Right, can take my position, and freely admit to using such tactics themselves while blaming the Left that they're doing precisely the same thing, but are hypocrites because they pretend they don't. The perceived moral high ground matters more to the Left, because they are farther away from the natural way of being and living. They can't lose it. But if the Right adopts this strategy, then the Left is guaranteed to lose. — Agustino

There's definitely some pragmatism in the use of these tactics, but to me it's a slippery slope. Once the truth is sacrificed for the sake of political expediency, we forfeit any right to criticize or condemn those who would gladly reduce us to servile status (at least partly through the use of deception) if given the opportunity. What's left once we cede this ground? This is the issue I have with you, I think: you talk a lot about virtue and character and yet you'll gladly jettison these admirable things of the 'soul' for the sake of more worldly and ignoble goals. So there's a massive disconnect between what you say you believe in and the way you manifest those beliefs. You haven't adequately explained this discrepancy, at least not as far as I'm aware.

Now this may be an antiquated idea--laughable in fact--but I view the attempt to gain power by whatever means necessary, regardless of the consequences to the physical and/or psychological well-being of others, as extremely dangerous and immoral. Of course the issue of values is more ambiguous than that of factual matters, but even here I like to think superior ones (dedication to truth, justice, courage, temperance, an appreciation of beauty, etc.) have a compelling force on an open mind if only given a proper hearing. You only need to lie if you don't truly believe in the superiority of your positions, or if you don't trust the judgment of others (e.g. Plato's Noble Lies) to accept what you take to be truths.

I don't think this is of importance here. I have double-standards being fully aware that I have them. So how is this self-deception?

You can take two basic approaches to this. One is the approach which you suggest, namely persuading others of those hypocrisies, reasoning with them, and getting them to see the truth. I am disillusioned with your approach, because it ain't working, and I don't think it's ever going to work (and please try to convince me otherwise, but my experience certainly shows that human beings are too selfish, and too attached to being seen as moral for it to ever work). Instead I submit to the other approach - each camp is to fight the other one to the best of their abilities - that's what's going to determine who emerges out as the victor. So I have no shame in fighting the Left using any tactics and strategies which work. — Agustino

I don't think people have been given the truth. So I wouldn't say that this doesn't work. It does however seem like those who lie willingly almost always do so under the illusion that it's for some greater good. This too could be a form of self-deception. Now if you came out and told me that you didn't give a shit about anyone but yourself, and that you'd kill me for the $20 I had in my wallet if given the opportunity, then you'd be free from hypocrisy and self-deception. You'd obviously be a sociopath, but at least an honest one. In an odd way I find even this type of blunt honesty to be somehow dignified. Strange thing.

I do think your 'type' is what bothers me most about this topic. I'm referring to intelligent, educated and thoughtful people who knowingly and willingly lie to others in order to achieve ends they perceive to be in their interest (or in the interest of their group). You know the truth but conceal it and peddle false appearances instead. You're essentially a sophist. Why so much effort in deceiving people--pitching your views (here at least) as nothing more than useful lies--if they're not generally disposed towards searching for the truth and doing good? That's my issue I guess. Do we have an inherent need for self-deception, or is it that we live in a political and economic system in which powerful actors and groups are always lined up (on both sides) to seek their advantage through deception of the masses?

Why not just come out and tell people, for instance, that we (in the US) went into Iraq for oil, and not because of any love of democracy or humanitarian aims? If 'average' people are so fixated upon their narrow self-interest then why don't we just give them truths like that? A lot of effort is expended in appealing to the moral sense that most people seem to have. I know I get pissed when someone lies to me, and I feel pangs of conscience when I lie to others. Maybe I'm just one of the sheep whom the wolf-like 'overmen' view as malleable material.

I'm veering off topic a bit now, but suffice it to say I want to fight the deceptions coming from both the Left and the Right. And increasingly I want to fight against my own deceptions more than anything else. I'm at least becoming aware of them. Anyhow, I feel your unconditional commitment to party and rigid ideology prevents you from turning more people to your side. You argue your case well at times, but at others you seem to lack the necessary emotional awareness of the subtle means which could sway an opponent to your side. You can clearly 'rally the base' though, and maybe that's all you'd like to do.

People like me are typically turned off by your consistent use of hyperbole and your admitted use of caricature in order to drive home your extremely un-nuanced position(s). You've now admitted the obvious, i.e. that you have no special attachment to truth and that you will purposely deceive in order to influence. Now that this admission has been made and your credibility has been shattered, try convincing us of the truth or superiority of your political (or other) positions.

Good points. I think my own ego has been stirred into action recently and I'm honestly not liking the negative emotions associated with perceived affronts. I've always considered myself a political 'progressive' but am currently undergoing a pretty radical shift in political outlook. Not towards conservatism as traditionally conceived (small govt., free markets, etc.), but definitely away from the Left.

For example, I keep hearing from leading Democrats about a political alliance between Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, Black-Americans, women and young people that will inevitably shape this country's future. What's conspicuously absent in this collective is any mention of older white males. It's safe to assume we're the new enemy; we're the 'other' around whom this hypothetical alliance is being formed. Well, since I belong to this maligned demographic (working-class background to boot), I've been getting a bit defensive lately and have started to formulate what I feel is a more inclusive and genuinely forward-thinking sense of personal and collective identity, one beyond the typical racial and gender categories that people use.

I think understanding this human predicament may assist any effort to 'win' people over to a new identity. I do know one thing: bludgeoning people with insults (to them, their families, their country, and the other things you pointed out which bolster their identity) will harden them to your message and preclude any genuine dialogue or possible reconciliation from taking place.

Interesting topic. I have little background in traditional disputes regarding the nature of God, but I think Heidegger does an admirable job of highlighting the ontological difference between beings and Being, specifically through everyday activities like using a hammer or a piece of chalk. This distinction - in which we understand what something 'is' primarily by using it - underlies the priority of human beings (Dasein) as the beings who stand within the broader 'clearing' in which beings are understood in myriad ways and not just one-dimensionally as physical entities.

This clearing is not an existing (physical, tangible) thing, but without 'it' we would be closed off from a meaningful world of people, things, etc. It's like a great emptiness in which we 'live and move and have our being' without noticing the 'it' that opens up our world. This tentative line of thinking and questioning seems fertile to me as it relates to theology and, what seems essential to a reinvigorated theology, a new understanding of what it means to be human.

I wouldn't be sure how to cash out this conception of 'God' in a social and practical way, or, what amounts to the same, in a way that squares with the ostensible interest a personal God takes in our lives. I actually don't find that idea as ridiculous as I once did. Seems more akin to maybe Heraclitus' Logos, Parmenides' Being, or possibly even the Tao of Eastern thought. In other words, not a notion of 'God' that would resonate with many people.

I'll stop talking out of my ass though and hope that others will correct my mistakes.

Conflict isn't playing out in terms of policy. What's at stake isn't, for example, the enacting of one particular racist policy or not. The Left isn't just saying: "We ought not lock-up and deport illegal immigrants because it's racist." They are concerned about an underlying identity that sees us even pose such racist policies in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why must the desire to take laws seriously be grounded in underlying (racial?) identity? Every nation, and not just those with a white majority, should have the right to secure its borders and keep track of who comes in. I wouldn't dream of moving to China or Thailand or Mexico without going through the proper legal channels. If I did show no respect for their laws, I sure as hell wouldn't complain about their racism if I were arrested and deported. That's not racist, that's common sense. This spurious connection between ALL white people and racism - our thoughts and actions are always determined by racial considerations, regardless of the circumstances - betrays a grotesque arrogance and presumptuousness. Not every white person is so one-dimensional in outlook, however much you or others may be. White racists are not respected by anyone outside their small and cloistered community. Let's keep it like that and stop giving them more ammo to draw in potential sympathizers, which is precisely what I think the the Left is doing these days.

In their everyday lives, a lot of the people the Left is criticising get along fine with people of many different ethnicities. For many, it's only when the abstraction of American identity becomes involved that the issues come out. When discussion of our identity that impacts our reaction to people we don't know occurs, it becomes all about the importance and superiority of white people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What is this abstract American identity? My guess is your narrative won't square with the that offered by a majority of those maligned Trump supporters. Things like economic stagnation, a rising drug and crime rate in these supposedly privileged white working-class communities, national crisis in education and healthcare, or a general feeling of hopelessness in an increasingly alien world dominated by global finance and advanced technology couldn't have possibly influenced white peoples' decision to vote against an establishment candidate? A candidate moreover who had no answers for this situation other than 'Hey, everything is great, and if you don't think so you must be a racist.' In my more cynical moments I'm inclined to see this a shameless attempt (honesty is of little consideration for those who want to maintain power) by the 'establishment' to keep working class whites, blacks and Latinos divided and distracted from the genuine villains in this narrative. We're so fucking stupid and so desiring of acceptance that we buy into this one-sided way of perceiving things and thereby perpetuate class domination. White working class people have WAY more in common with non-white working folk than they do with affluent and highly-educated upper crust whites.

People who point out an advantage white men have are suddenly "vilifying white men" for pointing out out a state of society and/or claiming it is unjust. The moment the abstraction "white man" comes-up, the importance and superiority of the white man casts aside any other consideration. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's you who seems to be casting aside any other consideration and zeroing in on race as the sole determining factor in peoples' thoughts and actions. Well, at least white peoples'--I'd imagine non-whites in their inherent nobility and open-mindedness will be a priori exempt from this charge. The concrete lives of real human beings - rather than demonized caricatures - is full of complexity and nuance. Or maybe that's yet another abstraction? To assume that we're all helpless against the injustices of some impersonal 'system' grounded in white racism betrays a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. White people are not a monolith. Nor are black or brown people. Nor are gay people. Does that mean racism doesn't exist? No, that would be an equally dogmatic position completely lacking in nuance and subtlety, and completely disrespecting the (at least potential) uniqueness of particular human beings.

There are indeed racists and bigots out there, quite a few in fact, but we conquer their narrative not by buying into their premises by rather by challenging their guiding assumptions and beliefs. The hate and bigotry of both the hardcore Left and Right are both symptoms of mass lunacy and, to me, betray a disturbing lack of genuine insight for the sake of abstract idols. These must be defended at any cost, even if that means distorting the truth to serve an agenda. Real life experiences have a powerful way of bringing those preconceived notions which supposedly determine the 'essential' traits of people based upon race or religion crumbling down, if we only set aside our assumptions and allow them to speak.

If I point out that a Trump voter has supported a racist party and platform, and so has an identity bound-up with that racism, I'm supposing lying. Supposedly, I'm unfairly stereotyping white working class Trump supporter, as if I failed to understand they are not racists but rather concerned with something else (the economic degradation of their communities under the modern neo-liberal economy). In this situation, my truthful statement about Trump supporters is misunderstood as a self-serving lie based on my irrational prejudice. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you're only lying when you extend the fringe group's racist motivations to anyone and everyone who voted for Trump. And I wouldn't call it 'lying', I'd call it being arrogant in your self-righteousness and extreme presumptuousness. As if you had some sort of access to the actual thought-processes of people whom you've never met or spoken with. Even if they told you racism wasn't their motivation for voting Trump, you'd think they were lying because you know what motivates them better than they themselves do. This, again, is dogmatism and 'esentializing' of the new 'other' at its worst. It's an attempt to invert a racial hierarchy instead of striving to overcome it altogether. The intention to rectify past and current injustices is genuine and good, I believe, but the execution on pragmatic lines amongst the Left is horrible and riddled with unintended consequences. Nothing could harden people more to your message - assuming it's one that seeks ultimate racial harmony or even irrelevancy - than this condescending and holier-than-though approach. Incidentally, this phenomena is probably partly the reason for Trump's victory. You bludgeon and browbeat people enough with baseless accusations - coupled with an implicit assumption of your own superiority and infallibility - and they'll finally respond to you with a resounding Fuck You!

Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. In the abstraction of identity, white people view themselves as the only ones who matter, who are the ones to whom America belongs. It's this the Left is targeting, not just people who'd like to lynch anyone in their town who's not white. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, your penchant for blanket generalizations is truly remarkable. Please call me out if I engage in the same sort of idolotry and obsession with the a priori and I will thank you for it. Just because some idiots are lacking in self-awareness and are therefore oblivious to their own hypocrisy, doesn't necessarily mean that ALL Trump supporters are 'racist, sexist, and heterosexists' who support that fringe element. The anti-Trump crowd (the pro-Trump crowd too) has a right and a duty to exorcise that small segment of Trump supporters who are just as narrow-minded and beholden to abstractions as the ideological dogmatists on the other side of the political spectrum. Once again, your narrative and worldview seems to be a projection that you've imposed upon this new hated 'other' in your Manichean scheme of things. The Left (I'm aware that this too is an abstraction) can hate, and hate passionately, without feeling bad about it. They can even feel righteous in their hatred within this quasi-religious narrative, one in which they fight the forces of evil and oppression for the sake of the downtrodden and oppressed. I will admit it was compelling for me back when I identified with this group, and still is to a certain extent. 'He who battles monsters...'

Now don't get me wrong, I too believe in the importance of narratives, and even the use of abstractions to a limited and qualified extent, but the exemplary figures in my preferred story are off all races and ethnicities, and they view the world through a lens that, at the very least, attempts to move beyond this obsessive preoccupation with racial biology and towards a higher and more inclusive identity. It's basically an identity which encompasses anyone who believes in a modified version of the American Dream. Now I definitely have issues with this 'dream' as traditionally interpreted, but the basic idea of working hard, playing by the rules, respecting the rights and freedoms of others within the constraints of a set of shared values and beliefs, regardless of race, is something I no longer mindlessly ridicule. I have mocked this 'Dream' in the past - being a socialist/communitarian at heart - but there are parts of this narrative that I respect now, especially by way of contrast with what the Left is offering: a continued stoking of racial divisiveness and other resentments directed at white working class folk. It resonates with people for a reason and is an inspiring vision of a society not dominated by a strict alignment of my identity with my race or caste.

So it's not the Dream that's the issue, it's the failure of implementation. Nowadays many people don't even appear to want to participate in it since it would mean the end of their native 'culture' and tradition, yet they are quick to call out white people for fearing the loss of their culture. Seems the hypocrisy is all around. To be honest, my wife's family - traditional Spanish-speaking and relatively recent Mexican immigrants - had much more of a problem with her marrying me than my white trash family had with me marrying her. Go figure. Seems like almost all people feel a bit insecure about losing their sense of identity, but only one segment of the population is demonized for doing so. Anyhow, why don't you articulate your understanding of this American Identity and I'll offer up mine in response. This is the very important conversation that needs to commence, and in order for it to do so we should temporarily set aside the one which only ever sees human interactions within the context of racial identity and mutual hostility based upon one of innumerable possible identifying factors.

Apologies for the harsh tone of this post. I don't like Trump at all, but I do have many family members who voted for the guy so I get a little defensive when people disparage and caricature all of his supporters as instantiating some essential traits. They (my family) look at the racist goons who supported Trump - 'White Nationalists' or whatever they call themselves - without the least bit of sympathy or connection. So yeah, this is deeply personal issue and, as mentioned, these abstractions impact the way they perceive things. I think we need to find new ways of understanding ourselves and others moving forward which, IMO, do a better job of matching the experiences of actual people, i.e. those engaged in the day-to-day grind of working honestly, supporting their families, trying to be positively involved in their communities, etc.

Concrete examples drawn from direct firsthand experience have a way of humanizing the villain - even those villains on the Left and the Right that I've portrayed here - and are therefore a threat to the world of tidy abstractions which give the powers that be even more power. These are far from benign, and while offering us a stable sense of identity and a good conscience they also contain the seeds of violence and oppression. Who doesn't want to be one of the 'good guys' in this simplified (and largely manipulative) plot, fighting the injustices and racism of uneducated and foolish buffoons? There are other equally dangerous narratives: We're one the good guys fighting the global oligarchs. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the communists. Or we're the good guys fighting the colonial oppressor. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the Jews. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the atheists. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the religious dogmatists who would threaten our freedoms. How powerful and comforting these illusions are - by providing us with a sense of meaning and purpose that may otherwise be lacking - and how hard it is to let go of them is more a matter of ego than of 'truth' or anything else. I'll be the first to admit this. But let's at least acknowledge how extremely dangerous these abstractions can be; we can see how the historical demonization of the 'other' paved the way for the eventual use of violence against them as a moral duty. Let's just keep that in mind as we continue to perpetuate this racial narrative.

I am resolute in one thing, and that would be my conviction that we desperately need a new story to bind us together. Less abstractions, less double-standards, and more open and honest dialogue. That would be a start, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Left (and the Right) is doing these days.

I can only counter the academic and intellectual approach to racial matters with my own experience. My experience isn't the whole story, obviously, but I feel fortunate to have been raised in an extremely diverse area where I was exposed to many different races and cultures. I have way more Latino friends than white, and many of these friends (about 50% I'd say) voted for Trump. I also married a Mexican woman and have two boys who are mixed race. So yeah, I personally don't give a rat's ass about what color or race a person is and tend to look more at commonalities beyond superficial distinctions (no matter how important these have been historically). If my son brought home a black girl who treated him well and made him happy, I would be overjoyed.

Now there are obviously other white people who do feel some special attachment to their racial identity, but I think the percentage of those who do who may have been greatly exaggerated. I've met too many awesome black and Latino and Jewish and Asian people, and also way too many white people who were total assholes to put much stock in tribal divisions and insidious generalizations. That's the beauty of America, at least as a possibility despite a dark past of racial antagonisms. I'm not suggesting people of color or other marginalized people just 'get over it' but, as a pragmatist of sorts, am wondering how best to move forward on the issue without the constant rehashing of resentments. The constant vilification of white men is not helping.

A naïve and unsophisticated position indeed, but in many ways more true than the views peddled out of academia that seem to perpetuate divisiveness and racial hatred. The people I hang out with and work with are more important to me - and more influential on my thoughts - than getting caught up in abstractions. I'm more interested in issues of class than race. American identity IS NOT synonymous with being white to anyone other than fringe groups that probably represent about 1% of the population.

Again, these are just my views and I'll leave it to others to form their own opinions.

As I understand him (an important qualification), Nietzsche does seem to contradict himself on the topic of truth. The man who claimed there are no facts but only interpretations frequently distinguished between truth and falsity in his writings, even if only implicitly. Platonism and Christianity are based upon deceptions and are therefore inferior to other 'thisworldly' perspectives; the 'overman' is superior to the last man; atheism is superior to religious dogmatism; embracing war and struggle is superior to seeking out peace and security, etc.

He appears to ground these judgments in some broad metaphysical conception of 'Life' akin to Schopenhauer's notion of blind striving will (to power). Those perspectives which are true(r) to Life are ipso facto more life-affirming and desirable, however much they may offend our modern sensibilities. Heraclitus, for instance, comes in for heavy praise by way of juxtaposition with Parmenides (or was it Plato?) precisely because he articulates an accurate view of Life--one characterized by constant movement and change and warfare instead of positing some eternal and ideal world beyond this one.

But this may be a specious reading of Nietzsche. I'm an admirer of many aspects of his thought, and find his life to be of great interest (like Wittgenstein's), but I definitely need to revisit his works after many years away. I do think he felt his perspective was true, and not merely one more useful illusion amongst many others. If this weren't the case, and he looked at all perspectives and interpretations as equally groundless, then he should have had a tremendous respect and admiration for Christianity's overpowering of the world and the values of the ancient Greeks. He may have felt a grudging admiration for this achievement, but he clearly didn't think it was a positive development for historical humanity.

And I must say that as much as I can't stand Donald Trump, the reaction of the Left to his presidential victory has been a real eye opener for me. The ostensible party of compassion and tolerance and social justice has shown itself to be incredibly intolerant and hateful, and just as prone to engage in the type of stereotyping and essentializing rhetoric that they have so vehemently (and rightly in most cases IMO) protested when directed at people of color, Muslims, etc.

From what I've seen they are also just as likely to distort facts in the service of their agenda as any rightwing party has ever been. Add to that their snobbish elitism, their turning their backs on the working class in favor of self-serving connections with global finance, and their attempt to portray everyone who voted for Trump as ipso facto a racist, sexist and xenophobic moron, and you have a party that I can no longer stand by. Dukkha outlined this position well, and I don't think he exaggerated the tenacity of the hatred many on the Left feel for anyone who challenges their Manichean worldview.

Again, I can't emphasize enough how pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean one is a Republican partisan or an enthusiastic Trump supporter. An unintended consequence of their crusade against the perceived injustices of white males is that it has turned some of us (or more than some) who would otherwise be inclined to sympathize with quite a few of their positions (on economics, the environment, social programs and the like) against them - and many people who didn't previously give a shit about their 'race' - and who have never picked their friends, their spouse, their employees etc. based upon such narrow-minded tribal loyalties - have come to see that they are hated precisely because of it.

And no, I don't think pointing this out makes one a racist; I will acknowledge the many injustices non-whites and all 'others' (non-white male heterosexuals) have been the victims of in the US and abroad, and the genuine need to rectify these legitimate grievances to the best of our abilities, but I will also disagree with them on how best to transcend racial categories in favor of a more inclusive identity-- assuming of course that that's their goal, which I'm beginning to think isn't the case. Seems many would like to invert the old racial hierarchy instead of superseding it altogether.

Apologies for the rant. A bit cathartic for someone who's tried to take an independent view of the current political situation beyond party lines over the past couple weeks and who, for this, has been attacked and vilified for simply trying to facilitate constructive dialogue. That's precisely not what either side of rigid ideologues wants. I tried not to get sucked into the hate and hostility, but was unfortunately unsuccessful. So the gloves came off and both sides can go fuck themselves.

I've also been drifting towards more conservative positions over the past couple years, at least on social issues. I still don't identify at all with the global free-market + decreased spending on social programs + militant nationalism-type conservatism of the Republican 'establishment', but I've also become increasingly alienated from the very divisive identity politics and smug sense of superiority coming from the Left.

Now I may be delusional, but I truly feel that a new 'party' of sorts combining progressive economic principles (drawn from the Left) with some socially conservative positions (drawn from the Right) may resonate with more and more people moving forward. I see these as compatible and am a bit surprised there's no representation for this voice. It would eschew the racism and nationalism associated with more egregious elements of the Right, but also the secularism and multiculturalism of the Left. It would advocate at the grass roots level a pro-environmental and anti-consumerist perspective, a reassessment of the aims and ends of education, and, broadly speaking, would attempt to infuse the material with 'spiritual' significance without necessarily being 'religious'.

This is obviously in embryonic form and poorly formulated, but I'm interested in gathering perspectives from people of all political persuasions to see if some amalgamation is possible and appealing. Here at TPF we have a number of posters (Thorongil, TGW, Agustino, Wayfarer, et al) who, I think, fall somewhere in this category representing a new type of conservatism. Or maybe it's an old type - going back to early Romantic reactions against the perceived excesses of the Enlightenment - which is slowly gaining more credibility as global kleptocracy and authoritarian populism are viewed as equally horrible alternatives in a world of advanced technological capitalism.

I view this as a 'spiritual' crisis, and nothing less than a significant transformation in the way we understand ourselves and our world will suffice to take on the challenge. As Nietzsche noted, man is a bridge...

I'll grant all that you wrote, but would then counter the implicit assumption that other, non-Western peoples don't engage in the same sort of aggressibe behavior, just not as effectively over the past few hundred years due to a number of factors, including the West's relative technological superiority:

The Aztecs conquered surrounding tribes before the Spaniards set foot in the New World. Ditto for the Incas. The Iroquois fought the Huron. The Lakota fought the Comanche. The Arabs conquered many lands and peoples during the rapid spread of Islam - including some in Europe - and before that fought amongst themselves until one group became dominant. The Ottomans did the same at a later stage, also spreading into Europe and subjecting the population to their interests. The Chinese fought amongst themselves until finally being consolidated by the strongest contending power, and then were conquered by the Mongols and later by the Manchus. The Japanese sought to expand into China and other parts of southeast Asia. The Persians attempted to subject the Greeks (amongst others). I'm not too familiar with sub-Saharan African history, but in modern times we've seen a large amount of intertribal warfare. The list goes on and on.

So it would be something like Nietzsche's understanding that what is being attributed strictly to Europeans may be an essential fact of life more generally - life as 'essentially' appropriation, exploitation, excretion, aggression, etc. - rather than a particular feature of any one region or race or ethnicity. I would stop short of his view, as I understand it, that IF this behavior is congruent with life as honestly assessed (instead of the way we'd like it to be), then it should be seen as 'good', or, at the very least, 'beyond good and evil'. I have my reasons for disagreeing with his tacit metaphysics and perspective, but that may be a topic better handled at another time.

I am, however, very much open to the idea that there's something peculiar about the modern European drive to dominate and oppress. It's a topic that intrigues me a great deal in fact and I'm curious to hear your opinion on the matter.

Yeah I would second that if it involves the belief that there's some positive advantage that one gets by virtue of being 'white'. Sure, I can acknowledge that I may not get stopped by police because of my skin color, or may not receive bad service at a restaurant due to stereotypes, or any number of other things that black people are in general much more likely to be subjected to and which are demeaning. But what actual benefit do most average working-class white folk receive? None that I can tell. But I'll entertain ideas that run contrary to this if anyone can convince me otherwise.

I tend to view things more in terms of class and culture, and the many assumptions that are made regarding these things. Perhaps that's just my 'white privilege' speaking, and I'm not being facetious in suggesting that possibility.

I remember a class discussion back in college involving Edward Said's Orientalism that I found interesting. Predictably, it pertained to Western colonialism and oppression - specifically in the Middle East in this case - being prepared by historians, novelists and other intellectuals who served as some sort of vanguard for the later military, political, social and economic domination of the region. The inhabitants of the area were depicted as lazy, sensual, undisciplined etc. and juxtaposed to the rational, orderly and elevated French and English who would eventually serve as their overlords. It was this intellectual 'essentializing' of the 'other' which paved the way for the actual physical subjection which occurred later.

After weeks of learning that this essentializing was not based upon the 'objective' search for truth (there is no such thing) but was instead entirely in the service of power, I told the teacher that it seemed like Mr. Said was doing precisely what he accused others of doing: essentializing Europeans as greedy, self-serving, deceitful and just plain evil.

His response to my naïve comment/inquiry, after months of telling us how identities were not grounded in reality but were 100% social constructs: 'Well, aren't they?'

I wasn't satisfied with his response but didn't press further on whether he felt identities were drawn from actual facts (or at least interpretations of facts) or were complete fictions guided by nothing more than power interests. Seemed like he wanted it both ways for some reason; complaining incessantly about the injustice of European hierarchies and domination while simultaneously perpetuating his own sort of inverted hierarchy with its own type of essentializing. Reminds me of Nietzsche's take on the successful Christian inversion of Greco-Roman values in the world of antiquity.

Anyhow apologies for that irrelevancy. I'm finding this discussion very interesting too and don't have a settled opinion on the matter.

Yeah that standard Republican economic agenda has been to push for unregulated global free markets, the continued dismantling of labor unions, the elimination of social services which provide a bit of a safety net for struggling citizens, and other such things. These have created the very conditions of anger and resentment amongst the populace which contributed to Trump's popularity and rise to power. I don't see how he can just maintain that business as usual approach after all he's talked about and promised. One thing is however certain: if anyone can be that blatantly dishonest and backstabbing, it would be Trump.

This is so untrue on so many levels. I'm surprisd you would think that a Republican sweep would solve it if not exacerbate it.

You may be right, but I think Thorongil did a good job of pointing out that many within the Republican establishment - those primarily concerned with protecting large corporate interests - have been extremely hostile to Trump. If he's a typical Republican, why the discomfort? Not sure what this development portends, but it does seem to buttress Trump's self-portrayal as the anti-establishment candidate (along with Bernie Sanders) who will represent the neglected interests of working class Americans.

But sure, his vague mentions of preferred economic policy did not sound very populist to me, especially his plan to lower taxes on the wealthy even further, ostensibly as a means of getting them to set up shop and do business in the US once again. My main point was that IF he doesn't follow through with his promises to represent the economic interests of average people, then someone else will be there to rally this group that he (and Bernie) energized. If nothing else, I do see that wedge he's driven between normal people and the economic elites whom they used to support, and uncritically at that, to be a positive development. And while isolationism may not be a realistic possibility in this day and age, if it leads to less meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries to protect American or MNC business interests, that could be a good thing as well.

I'll keep abreast of the latest developments and information as it arises and reassess my views accordingly. That's the good thing about not being an ideologue or party hack who interprets facts to fit an agenda and only sees what they want to see. I'll try my best to avoid the blatant hypocrisy I've seen from both sides and search instead for the truth, which is clearly not what motivates political partisans.

Indeed. It may not be realistic to expect a return to the days when one could find a solid and stable job without an advanced degree or marketable skill, afford to buy a home at a reasonable price, raise a family on a single income with more parental involvement in the kids' lives, etc. and in doing all these things attain the very important psychological satisfaction of having a certain respectable status within the community. But the alternative of staying the neoliberal course at the expense of hardworking and law-abiding citizens was not the answer either. I'll await Trump's solutions to the myriad problems we're facing with a bit of cautious optimism. Change was obviously needed, whether it's for the better or worse remains to be seen. Couldn't get much worse for many people, at least economically, and that was the primary motivation for voting against the 'establishment' and for a man who effectively crafted a narrative in which he - an outsider relative to the main players within the system - would finally give voice to those who've been screwed over and neglected.

And I would also ask: do you really think Trump needs more money? Was that his sole or even primary motivation for running for president? To enrich himself and his friends? It's definitely possible. I'm not a fan at all and honestly don't know what his thought-process or driving ideas have been. I am cynical about his stated intentions, but at this point I'm willing to wait and see what he does. Enhancing his power and influence in the service of his already monstrous ego seem more likely motivating factors, but then if that's the case why not try to implement those changes you promised through your populist message and strive to be loved by the masses? I see no necessary conflict in his self-interest somehow aligning with the interests of working-class Americans. In fact at this point they seem symbiotic. If he does sell out to that very establishment he attacked, he'll be called out for it by the many media outlets who already despise him and perhaps someone like Bernie Sanders will be given an opportunity the next go around. That would be ideal, actually.

There's obviously a major disconnect between his life and the group he claims to represent. No argument there, but would that be the first time that's happened in politics? Of course not. But he's awakened that monster despite the discrepancy, and will be held accountable by this group to deliver on his promises. If he doesn't - which I agree he probably wont - someone else will be there to channel the energies of these middle and lower-class folk. I'm hoping that's the case.

This may be a bad theological analogy (my understanding of these matters is minimal), but it's almost like a corrupt preacher who lives a secret life of debauchery and possibly even unbelief somehow inspiring others with the message of the gospel. His motivation may have been to get their money through tithing, or to gain power and influence within that particular community, but the end result may have also been to change lives amongst the flock and make them somehow aware of their sin in a way they may not have understood before. I see no reason why the insincerity of the one (preacher) should necessarily lead to the insincerity of the other (church members or parishioners or whatever they're called). Like I said, that may not be a great analogy but I do think it makes the point to a certain degree. Trump appealed to the working class in a cynical and manipulative fashion, I think, but that doesn't mean his message didn't resonate amongst this large bloc of voters.

I see the one positive development of the Trump campaign being his ability to make the 'white working-class' a more self-conscious group than before, when they served the interests of their Republican free market fundamentalist overlords. The very notion of a working class vote, to my recollection, has not been important in US politics for a very long time. So that class awareness is a positive development IMO and will hopefully temper the latent racism within this group and lead to a more inclusive working-class coalition with other non-white citizens of this country.

I think that is entirely possible. I come from one of those working class families with many members who supported Trump, and can say with confidence that not all Trump supporters were motivated by bigotry and hate. That was a caricature disseminated by popular media, the motivation perhaps being to shame decent folk away from any association with Trump. I don't think that grotesque aspect of his candidacy was essential to all or even most of his voters. What was essential was the fact that a large segment of US citizens have been hit hard over the past 40 or so years in material and psychological terms, with loss of jobs, the breakup of families, increased drug use, the loss of status within the community and nation, etc. Those social, political and economic conditions were exploited by Trump, but not created by him. Dems bailed out on this group of what should have been their natural allies many years ago, and their cynical manipulation by the Republican establishment (based upon cultural rather than economic considerations) is now thankfully over.

I doubt Trump will truly serve the interests of this group he's made many promises to, but as mentioned they are now class conscious and anti-establishment. It's going to be a good opportunity to really battle over what it means to be an American now, as that question is far from settled. Hopefully an inclusive and forward-thinking answer to this question will be put forward, with a fixation on identity politics and other divisive things (although noble in intention) ultimately giving way to more transcendent and elevated sense of communal and environmental responsibility. This may take the next 20-30 years if not longer (again, Trump will not be able to provide the long-term answer IMO), but that corrupt status quo of unchecked capitalism with its dominance by moneyed interests is thankfully over, at least for the time being. Now the battle for the soul of America begins and us working-class stiffs will have a voice in that conversation.

Just trying to find the silver lining in this result. It requires separating Trump the fraud from the real conditions of hopelessness he tapped into and appropriated to his advantage. He's a consequence rather than cause of our predicament, and looking at it like this offers a bit of solace and hope. He's unwittingly doing a temporary service for a movement much larger and potentially greater than himself. That vague narrative is at least the illusion I'd like to maintain right now. Giving form to that amorphous group of disaffected will definitely take plenty of work, but it's a fresh start.

It seems that for Heidegger, the existence of others is neither an objective or subjective fact. Heidegger tries to sidestep this realist notion by an analysis of others which places them not in an external or internal world, but rather grounds them in this notion of 'being-with', a necessary part of Dasein's ontological condition.

Realism and Idealism are both predicated upon a tacit acceptance of an inner/outer split. This starting point leads to myriad 'problems', the likes of which we're seeing here, and this modern philosophical orientation is precisely what Heidegger will try to undermine through the existential analytic.

This leads him wide open to accusations of solipsism. We want the existence of others to be an objective fact, not just a condition of experience.

Seems a false dichotomy. Why can't something be both an objective fact and a condition of experience? Like the world we live in. Or a fully functioning brain. Others exist both objectively and 'subjectively', ontically and ontologically. But again, it may be better to jettison the language of modern philosophy which, Heidegger will try to show, conceals more about us and the way we exist than it reveals. The existence of individual human beings is an ontic fact, while the existence of others 'ontologically' as being-with is entirely compatible with this. Grasping that so-called 'ontological difference' is essential for anyone who wants to make sense of Heidegger. Completely non-negotiable, in fact, if engaging him is something you're genuinely interested in.

The question of whether others actually exist independent of whatever Dasein experiences is side stepped by Heidegger. For Heidegger it is unintelligibe to speak of others 'outside' of Dasein, and so one cannot coherently make claims about the objective existence of others - which leads to solipsism. Heidegger's ontology cannot even make sense of claims about other minds existing independently of ones experience.

There is no 'inside' for Heidegger, so how could there be an outside? I used that term because it's more accurate, I believe, than the view that our experience takes place inside our head, but it's still misleading when measured against Dasein as articulated through Heidegger's fundamental ontology. It's like you're caught trying to place Heidegger within a paradigm whose foundations he feels are dubious.

This conceptual paradigm of subjects, objects, inner, outer, sense-data, etc. etc. will be replaced with a new one involving things like being-in-the-world, being-with, present-at-hand, ready-to-hand and the like. Heidegger is difficult to comprehend, in part, because he tries to forge a new language that will ultimately lead to a reinterpretation of what it means to be the opening or emptiness in which Being comes to presence through beings. It's an extremely radical position, and even he acknowledged later in life that he was still caught up in the language of metaphysics while writing Being and Time.

But back to the matter, solipsism flows from the modern outlook, with its Cartesian starting point and subsequent fixation on epistemological issues. Of course skepticism is a natural outgrowth from the guiding assumptions at work here. Those assumptions are precisely what Heidegger will call into question, with a corresponding attention being placed on how we interpret ourselves and our world 'initially and for the most part', characterized largely by practical, engaged activity in a public and shared world.

I'm sure you're making an interesting point here, but I just can't quite grasp the issue or problem. I do think you've created an unnecessary either/or scenario regarding objective fact vs. condition of existence of Dasein.

I'll keep following along if others want to try to engage you on the issue. Where are you, John?

But how could anyone ever step beyond their own experience in any meaningful way? That seems like a crazy demand to establish the 'objective' existence of anything. We can't transcend our perspective, and therefore solipsism seems incapable of ultimate refutation. I mean, how would you possibly confirm the objective existence of others, of anything, beyond the way in which you experience them? Maybe have a chat with them? Kick a ball around? Start up a discussion on an internet forum? What are you looking for here in your use of the term 'objective'? Something idiosyncratic, apparently, and perhaps that's what's preventing me from grasping your point.

Besides that, I think Heidegger's main issue with your line of inquiry would be this: before we can even begin to prove that a world of others exists beyond our experience, let's set aside our theoretical assumptions for a bit and pay closer attention to that experience itself. It may very well be that I'm a figment of your imagination, but your solipsistic experience involves others like myself in an intimate and necessary way. This relationship opens up a horizon of intelligibility in which things make sense to you, in which you can ask a question like you're doing now. Those skeptical questions have a background and a history of which we're a part. How do we prove these questions - and the philosophers who formulated them - did not originate in our head? Well, for one thing we could show that even we are never 'in our head', but rather out in the world with others - even when they are not 'objectively' present with us!

Greetings dukkha,

I don't think I understand your issue here. Of course others exist objectively whether they are part of my 'being-with' or not. The public, shared world in which we're brought up opens up an understanding of the being of beings for us. This ontological disclosure is not something that's given upon birth, but slowly develops through acculturation into the language and practices of our social-historical community. So in a way that may cause offense, for instance, I don't think Heidegger would consider babies to be Dasein. Or even those with, say, advanced Alzheimer's or significant brain damage. The world is largely, if not entirely, closed off to them, just as it appears to be for most (all?) 'world poor' non-human animals. Heidegger would agree that they are biologically human, but they are no longer 'daseining' to state it a bit differently, as an ongoing activity rather than an objective thing. The idiosyncratic terminology Heidegger is using here throws people off, since he's using 'world', and other seemingly familiar terms, in much different ways than is normally done (ontologically rather than ontically) .

I'm also curious as to how a human being could possibly be born alone on a desert island, without any attending to their needs from other human beings, and somehow manage to not only stay alive, but gain an understanding of itself and its world without language? I can imagine a hypothetical scenario - say a shipwreck in which a pregnant mother swims ashore a deserted island - in which the mother died after giving birth, but I can't fathom how that baby would survive and develop alone in that environment. Seems like an entirely unrealistic possibility and therefore not a significant challenge to the notion that to be Dasein (which, to repeat, is not synonymous with biological humanity) necesarily involves 'being-with' as part of its ontological constitution.

I like the way you think and I think I agree. What value does integrity have though?

Thank you for the kind words.

I would, yet again, separate the pragmatic from the more ethereal benefits of integrity. In regards to the former, I think concrete examples work best, and I'll use one from my own experience to hopefully make my case.

I manage about 15 employees, and before my arrival the morale was extremely low, with a high turnover rate, frequent absenteeism and other similar things which make running a successful business extremely difficult, if not impossible. Why? Primarily because the previous manager had lost all credibility with the staff, which was the result of him failing to live up to his word. Raises were promised to the deserving, promotions were promised based upon performance, and the like. The gentleman apparently had no intention of fulfilling his commitments, and this became clear after a while. His lack of integrity may have helped motivate the crew initially, but it eventually hurt the company in a roundabout way (I'm in the restaurant business), since the workers no longer cared about the quality of their work, and did much less than they were capable of. This scenario was ultimately reflected in poor guest satisfaction.

When I came in I immediately sensed the low morale and took the requisite steps to correct the problem. Now we have basically no turnover or absenteeism, but instead have a committed and loyal group that cares deeply about the well-being and profitability of the place. The food comes out faster and with higher quality than before, the place is cleaner and more organized, etc. The employees have aligned their interests with the larger interests of the company, and vice-versa. This is team-building 101; common sense to anyone perceptive to intangibles like group motivation and energy, but usually hidden from one-dimensional bean-counters and those immersed in their own selfishness and who see others as a hindrance rather than a help to achieving their goals.

Now regarding the less practical and more 'spiritual' advantages, I would largely agree with the idea that virtue (integrity) is its own reward, and needs no external validation to prove its worth. Philosophy, to me, is a way of being (rather than, say, a set of largely abstract positions on what are considered to be 'philosophical' topics) that manifests itself in the most trivial and mundane ways, as well as more elevated ones, obviously. Someone who has strength of character and is willing to forego the trappings of worldly success - fame, money, etc. - for the sake of higher principles is worthy of deep respect on that account alone. Clearly this sounds absurd to most modern ears, when everyone is thoughtlessly and shamelessly chasing after what they assume everyone else wants, largely I'd imagine in order to feel secure about themselves by getting some sort of positive recognition from others. To be free of this need, and to be secure in conscience and genuinely content with who we are, leads, or can lead, to an abiding sense of purpose and happiness beyond the ephemeral values of the marketplace.

I know the last part will not be very convincing to many, but I can only speak from my own experience and the communicated experiences of the wise through the ages. Not to sound holier than though or anything, but I've found much more truth and wisdom in the sages and philosophers I've studied than anywhere else. An antiquated view indeed, but no less relevant today than 2500 years ago IMO.

I've come to think it's a mistake to assume that lying is always more beneficial than being honest. While it often leads to immediate short-term benefits, the long-term costs may include a loss of your credibility and reliability, which in turn may adversely affect your job prospects, your personal relationships, your emotional and psychological well-being etc. More than that, the social impact will be to erode trust within the community, thus leading to pervasive cynicism and the dissociation between things that should be aligned: my well-being and yours. This seems the situation we have nowadays, although I'm also of the opinion that our interests need not be incompatible.

Granted, there will always be people who will be gullible enough to be taken in by your deception, and/or those who will have no qualms about hiring you as long as you can bring in profits by any means necessary, or any number of human beings who are not troubled by your lack of integrity as long as you can bring them some perceived benefit. So sure, good liars can be 'successful' up to a point. On the flipside, being honest can get you in a lot of trouble at times for reasons not hard to imagine.

Anyhow, I don't think being honest - excepting perhaps the occasional and harmless 'white lie' that usually has the consideration of other peoples' feelings in mind - necessarily precludes worldly success and achievement. In fact, I think it may actually contribute to these things in the long run in many cases. Establishing trust within a community can lead to some tremendous collective endeavors that would not, or could not, be accomplished through an artificial association of (mistakenly) autonomous egos bent on securing their own private advantage at others' expense in a zero-sum game. That may be a straw man, or at least a bit of an exaggeration, but not much IMO. Much modern philosophy tends in this hyper-individualistic direction.

And if that practical defense of truth-telling doesn't work, I'm still taken in a bit by Plato's more sublime notion that being dishonest (and immoral generally) leads to a certain disharmony of the soul, and is therefore not conducive to genuine happiness, at least not for any thoughtful human being. For those who are content with fucking and 'filling their bellies like beasts' (Heraclitus), well, the only response would be to suggest that it's better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig (JS Mill?). Another debatable point of course.

In my experience I've found it difficult to achieve consensus amongst even just a few people on mundane topics, like coming up with a core set of values or a marketing plan for a business they own collectively, so I don't think reaching unanimity on such contentious matters as politics, economics and cultural values is plausible.

I am curious, though, as to the details of your particular utopia? Even if only in broad outlines. Maybe there's some hypothetically perfect society that most people would agree upon, at least in principle. Again, that seems extremely unlikely - people are so varied in temperament, outlook, and other essential things that creating a shared set of values and guiding assumptions which everyone could agree upon seems an impossibility.

Agree 100%. I'm not at all sympathetic towards Trump and am thoroughly enjoying the beating his psyche must be taking through these non-stop (and deserved) attacks on his character. Actually I take that back: I heard him talking recently (maybe it was even that Bill O'Reilly interview Agustino posted earlier?) about how proud he is of the fact that he's been attacked by the media more than any other presidential candidate in US history. Or something like that. There's apparently nothing Trump can't appropriate into the service of his already massive ego. It's really astounding that anyone could be so deluded and incapable of honest personal assessment. Scary may be a more apt description.

I will make the concession that Trump has
been treated unfairly by the media vis-a-vis Hillary. Not suggesting he should be treated better, but rather that she should also be sharply condemned for her dishonesty and her cynical manipulation of the electorate. I don't think he's entirely delusional about that; she definitley gets preferential treatment and free passes on many things that he and other Republicans would be vilified for. So yes, there's corruption and those who enable it on both sides.

Heh, I'm about as far from an American nationalist or advocate of American interests (being the sole consideration of foreign policy) as one could be. Beyond questioning who actually benefits from such national partisanship, I don't believe we should be in the habit of meddling in the affairs of other nations or regions at the expense of the inhabitants of these lands - mainly for economic gain - unless absolutely necessary (e.g. ISIS - but even here our meddling may have made a significant contribution to its development and support).

I would rather seek out some common goals which I feel would benefit all people on this planet. So go ahead and accuse me of wishful thinking or naivety, but please don't assume I'm taken in by my own country's blatant and self-serving propaganda. We clearly need to get our own house in order before even considering exporting our model abroad. I'd make the friendly recommendation that others do the same. My only real 'enemy' is the narrow and shortsighted mindset which underlies and reinforces both the internal decadence and the external power politics that my country manifests. Nietzsche's notion of the Cold Monster in TSZ is one that really resonates with me.

Agustino,

Well I'm thinking more of a grassroots movement than you are, perhaps. Whatever the political and economic elites have in mind need not dominate the agenda. Now this may indeed be a naive approach - without the control of media, academia, etc - but the widespread discontent I mentioned, and which manifested itself in both Bernie Sanders (on the Left) and Donald Trump (on the Right), clearly shows that the power you're assuming the traditional shot callers have is a bit exaggerated.

I feel that politicians will respond pragmatically to popular movements and that these can have very humble origins. You seem to view change as largely a top-down affair involving traditional levers of power and influence whereas I see it just as equally as bottom-up. Rest assured, 'average' Americans are not horrible people who would idly sit back and allow (the caricature of) progressives to make a mockery of their values. Another thing you may not be aware of is that ethnic minorities in this country - increasingly the base of the Democrats - often hold some pretty conservative social values. A message which eschews racism and xenophobia and instead seeks some commonalities between the races and cultures which inhabit this country would surely resonate with them.

And regarding Baden (and most other progressives here), I respect him a great deal and think he'd be rather undogmatic and open-minded IF his hypothetical intellectual adversary didn't mock or ridicule his positions, but on the contrary tried to genuinely understand where they came from. Which is not a bad place I might add, at least not from what little I know of reading his posts through the years at both forums. I think I agree with him way more often than naught. I admittedly didn't see the thread you mentioned, but I can vehemently disagreeI with someone without demonizing them. And I hope they'd extend the same courtesy to me. I don't want this to be an encomia to Baden or our resident progressives, but they're mostly a pretty solid lot as far as I can tell - FAR superior to the Donald Trumps and Sarah Palins of the world - and maybe your constant hyperbole about them and their malicious intentions stops the conversation before it's even had a legitimate chance to get started. I sincerely think there's some common ground that should at least be explored.

I basically think your style can be extremely off-putting at times, and completely unbecoming of your intelligence and the thoughtful positions you frequently contribute. It's really an odd contrast. I also think you'd gain a lot more credibility if you refrained from doing silly things like referencing 'CROOKED Hillary' just as Trump does. It makes it seem like you're a propagandist who has some ulterior motive for attacking her beyond her progressivism. What that motive is remains a bit shrouded in mystery, although the fact that you may be a Russian nationalist causes one to speculate a bit. Truth before friendship, right?

He'll admit it when forced to (when indisputable evidence is involved), but he'll justify and explain away his actions. He specifically tends to justify his abhorrent behavior by pointing to other people who've done similar things. Honestly my 17-year-old stopped doing that a couple years ago, and takes much more accountability for his actions than a presidential candidate does. What kind of message does this immaturity send to our society, specifically to our kids, Agustino? He's not the answer.

Better for us to deal with Hillary for the next few years and do some intense soul-searching in the meantime. I think I'm tending towards the position that it'll be easier to reform progressivism with some 'culturally conservative' principles than to reform the Republican Party with progressive economic (and certain cultural!) principles. I truly believe that a large portion of people who currently align with these two parties are not content, and could be drawn into a new one combining - or better, transcending - the strengths of each. I'm preoccupied with this idea.

I'd laugh at the assertion that Donald Trump is honest. Just because he's apparently mastered the 'art of the deal' and may initially come across as sincere and truthful, doesn't mean he is these things. He'll gladly sacrifice the truth for the sake of political expediency, and is thus no different than Hillary or almost any other politician in that regard. At least admit that he's not guided in the least by any higher values than power and money.

Based upon my experience I'm inclined towards the view that plenty of women (not all or even close to all) have no qualms about using their sexuality to their advantage. I doubt any woman is going to wear high heels and a skin tight dress, for instance, for purposes other than gaining a particular type of attention. That can't be comfortable or functional. What they do get - in addition to more tangible benefits - is external validation of their attractiveness and desirability. This in turn results in a significant boost to their sense of self-worth. Many women will readily admit this. Others will say they dress like that 'for themselves', but to me that just means they understandably want to feel good, and the easiest and most common route to doing so in our society is to be valued for your body and your looks generally. Makeup, plastic surgery, overpriced clothing, etc. are all hugely popular with a significant percentage of people, at least where I live, so we do seem fixated upon physical beauty and sexuality. We probably don't give it much explicit thought most of the time, but it's what our society deems valuable and this has been inculcated from an early age. We're bombarded with images which reinforce this sense of value and self-worth through the fostering of insecurities and corresponding ideals of success and attractiveness.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this scenario, in which people are theoretically free to live and think as they wish, but let's be honest about it and admit that attractive women do at times objectify themselves. And also that men respond to this objectification.This is an obvious and undeniable point as I see it. And women do so because it can clearly result in significant advantages for them--or at least what they perceive to be advantages. That's the world we live in. That may very well be the way the world's always been. Take Melania Trump for example: would she be in the position she's in because of her brains, or her beautiful soul, or her other outstanding character traits? I doubt it. He married her because she's pretty and she married him, a narcissistic douchebag - one who's well beyond his physical prime - because it brought her quite a few benefits. So women, just like men, often do chase after power and money and fame by whatever means necessary.

It's this culture - with its lax morality and forging of such superficial relationships - that Agustino, to my understanding, feels is the problem. I don't think he's ever condoned aggressiveness towards women (regardless of how they're dressed) or rationalized such behavior in the way that Trump has. And while I despise his attempts to pitch Trump as the lesser of evils in this election, along with his seeming dismissal of 'progressivism' tout court, I do think he makes a relevant point or two on this issue: Donald Trump is a product of the dominant values of our society! That doesn't excuse his responsibility for his behavior entirely (or for that matter women who choose to objectify themselves), but it does shift a bit of the blame to larger social mores and values that are often seen as 'progressive' and liberating. These have been pushed through by some of the very people who are now up in arms over his disgusting and one-dimensional treatment of women.

This predicament is obviously not what feminists intended when they sought to disburden women from the shackles of domestic life, but perhaps more the unintended consequence of disparaging that life as somehow undignified. As if slavishly climbing the corporate ladder or otherwise trying to be like modern men is somehow indicative of a more worthwhile life. Men and women would both do well to reject these tacit assumptions and embody a much different set of values and self-interpretations. When that happens someone like Trump is no longer admired, but is instead seen as an embarrassment and an indictment of the society which gave rise to him. But I digress as usual...

Of course none of this means that men who are aroused by a woman's provocative dress or demeanor have the right to violate them in any way. It's a more nuanced position than that. Women will pick whom they want to have sexual relationships with, which is how it should be. But again, let's 'keep it real' and acknowledge the obvious: women are not always the innocent and passive recipients of unwelcome advances from men. Many of them WANT this reaction. They obviously don't want to open their legs for every guy who fawns after them, but they most definitely will for one with something to offer, and this 'something to offer' is typically not his warm and caring personality. I find this an indisputable fact of life in a commercial/consumer society, and would be curious as to where any person who disagrees with this blunt assessment lives. Maybe things are quite a bit different in more rural and conservative areas than where I've spent my entire life (Los Angeles).

For a man (or woman) to see and acknowledge this situation does not at all entail that they personally desire to have a sexual relationship with the particular tempter or temptress. In fact they can be saddened by such a situation in which both men and women are debased. But the point is that women often make themselves into what they feel men want, just as men try to make themselves into what they feel (attractive) women want. And these ideals are guided by the dominant values of the culture: Money. Physical attractiveness. Fame. Power. Donald Trump embodies these (three of them at least) and can thus pick from a slew of beautiful women who will gladly accommodate his desires as long as they receive something in return. Even something as fleeting as his momentary attention. Sad but true.

In an (my) ideal world people are modest, humble, simple, and concerned with much more than the physical attractiveness of their sexual partners. Nothing wrong with trying to make yourself attractive to your partner, but it shouldn't be the foundation of the relationship, and it should be kept more private than displayed in public. Again this is a nuanced position which avoids extremes of prudishness and vulgarity. In this idealized world we also age gracefully and don't feel the excessive need to fight against time in order to preserve our outward appearance for others. We're secure in our worth as human beings beyond what society - and marketers and advertisers - dictates we should feel about ourselves. Etc.

I have many disagreements with Agustino, but I'm beginning to share his opinion regarding the rottenness of our culture and its guiding values. I wouldn't want society to be what he wants it to be - there are a lot of GREAT things progressives have accomplished IMO - but I'm largely in agreement with him on this particular issue. I'm also open to other opinions, however, and may change my mind if presented with good evidence that our society, as it is, is conducive to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the individuals who compose it. I don't think it is, and this is merely one manifestation amongst many of its sickness.

I'd like to comment more but haven't had much time lately, nor the energy to do it properly. Let me just say that I think people who hold socially conservative positions should begin distancing themselves from the plutocrats whom, it seems, cynically manipulate them to serve interests that often run counter to their (socially conservative) values. And on the other side, maybe some 'progressives' could start breaking away from the divisive identity politics of the Left. I can understand the motivation behind those narratives, but do feel they alienate large segments of society which would otherwise be open to their forward-thinking economic agenda. We seem bogged down in racial strife at the moment, and a more inclusive movement which - at the very least - distinguishes between working class and 'elite' whites (and non-whites!) would appeal emotionally to the former while really isolating the latter. But maybe that's just my white privilege speaking.

I dislike the idea of placing meaningful emphasis on race altogether, and am neither proud nor ashamed of being white. I'm completely indifferent to the biological aspect of race in fact and am much more interested in the role of culture and ideas in shaping peoples' identities. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this sentiment. The strange thing about identity politics centered around race is that, in the attempt to invert previous hierarchies, its advocates push many of us into identifying with a group that we previously felt little or no emotional attachment to. It seems to purposely foment racial antagonisms by entrenching people in identities which they have no control over. This of course plays right into the hands of plutocrats who keep the masses at each others' throats, thus distracting them from focusing on the real oppressor.

Apologies for the digression. Lots of interesting points being made here, and it's baffling that there's not a single candidate that I can recall in my lifetime (in the US) who's combined social conservatism with a more leftist economics. I mentioned what I feel is an obvious point to Agustino in a previous thread, to wit, that a society in which virtue and civic-mindedness thrives - over greed and an exaggerated individual autonomy - would seem to take quite naturally to a more just and humane economic system. So there's a natural interconnection between currently perceived foes there. Good people make good citizens. They treat others with respect and dignity and, by doing so, foster good will. By neglecting the moral and ethical side of personal (and collective) development, liberals make their attempt to bring forth the just and equitable society they so desire all the more difficult. I understand the potential pitfalls and dangers of this approach - especially when undertaken by the state - which is why I mentioned previously that social conservatism should work outside the current political system through art and other means of spreading a new set of cultural values.

Granted this scenario sounds extremely unlikely at present, absurd in fact, but as an incipient movement I think it harbors tremendous potential to draw an interesting variety of people together in a coherent narrative. These people would be united, again at the very least, in a longing to transcend both the economic greed of the Right and the racial divisiveness of the Left. Instead of hating the wealthy we could pity them, specifically their sad fixation on the excessive accumulation of money and possessions. This narrow focus comes at the expense of the emotional satisfaction which can result from the development of deep connections with other human beings (and of course the natural world).

The envy and resentment we currently feel towards the rich may ultimately (hopefully) wither away, and we could then voluntarily scale back our needs with an accompanying feeling of pleasure rather than pain. By doing so, we would gain a sense of freedom and empowerment in our refusal to engage in the rat race. This hypothetical shift in values - call it socially conservative or liberal or progressive or whatever you like - would usher in a new sort of world. It would be one with new cultural exemplars who, in turn, would be emulated and admired in the same way that the wealthy are now. Perhaps it's not so much wealth that's important but the social recognition that arises from an abundance of it in our society. Other things could just as easily be recognized in some future era, just as they have been in the past (e.g. education, wisdom, honor). To my understanding, the successful businessperson hasn't always been at the apex of the social hierarchy, and need not be in the future.

I'm most definitely not against business, or even some sort of discrepancy in earnings based upon talent, effort and achievement, as long as the endeavor is subordinated to the 'higher' values of the community. That's clearly not the case now with 'profits above people' and with literally everything (education, healthcare, etc.) being judged according to its usefulness - or lack thereof - to the economy. If the profit-motive can be checked by higher human impulses, then I don't see these motives being necessarily incompatible. Wide variations in wealth do, however, appear detrimental to long-term social cohesion and stability. It's basically a matter of integrating certain cultural values into every aspect of our collective social, political and economic life.

Just brainstorming here. I'm sure some will argue that there's an element within 'human nature' - characterized by greed and acquisitiveness - which renders all of this totally laughable and unrealistic. My only (feeble) response would be: this hypothetical social transition is something that's been mirrored in my own life over the past 15-20 years, and I'm much more content now as a result. I'm sure others have had contrary experiences, but I do believe that many of us struggle to find emotional and/or 'spiritual' fulfillment within this current political and economic paradigm. Perhaps a new social reality - again, grounded in a new (or old?) set of values and interpretations - which did appeal to this side of our being, could have widespread appeal.

Thanks again to all who've contributed.

Thank you all for the contributions.

Come on Agustino! You have no bias in this?! Sure you're not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean your vehement dislike (hatred?) of Clinton - as the representative of the liberal progressives you detest - does not affect your judgement. I say this with all due respect and as someone who admires many of your socially conservative views a great deal. Don't go losing credibility with us! Please. You can grudgingly acknowledge that Clinton won the first debate and still harbor some biases. I don't think anyone thought Trump took that first one.

It is interesting that we generally see what we want to see, and that our personal stake in an issue largely determines our perception of it. We fit facts into a particular narrative that we find edifying. Many of the same people who were up in arms over Bill Clinton's sexual deviance, for instance, are justifying or trivializing Trump's abhorrent behavior. On the flipside, many Clinton supporters find her email issue to be an irrelevant diversion but view Trump's failure to disclose his taxes as a betrayal of the public trust and the need for transparency.

I wonder if most people are even aware of their biases and the blatant double standards they hold. Myself included! It's as if the ego gets in the way of truth, or at least clearer perception. Apologies for stating this most obvious point.