Fuuuuck no.

You’re right of course. This is part of the reason there needs to be a viable workers party, to educate and uplift the consciousness of workers to counter the lies of the GOP and the criminal negligence of the Democrats.

Sorry to break it to ya Slate (libs), Trump barely got more 18-24 votes this time than he did last time, whereas a lot of young people just didn’t show up for Harris. Everybody knew young people were upset by the genocide, they said they couldn’t vote for Harris because of her policies and surprisingly no matter how much Dem party dorks tried to shame them they didn’t show up, just like they said they wouldn’t. And now everyone is like “gen z is maga” get a grip

“These bonobo monkeys must become Rhodes scholars” is a more believable headline

Put a ring on it immediately.

Racial equality is a communist plot and that’s why communists are good actually

Great discussion, thanks for sharing your perspectives and sources as well! Good luck on your inquiries!

Formally as in have had a university publish books and articles that I’ve written on it? No, I’m afraid I have very little university education, I’m largely self-educated. I support people having the opportunity to go to college, but my life just didn’t work out like that. I’m all libraries, discussions, book sales, book clubs, writing and IRL political organizing. I’ve had some articles published but most of my writing is in notebooks.

I won’t bore you with bio details, but after sort of rejecting Harris’s vulgar determinism, I eventually discovered Rick Roderick’s lectures on Philosophy and Human Values. The video quality is pretty old, but as a survey of western Philosophy course, I found this extremely useful and compelling. His course on Neitzsche is also very good. His course on 20th century philosophy, its first episode, Masters of Suspicion is a passionate defense of the self, free will, as well as the validity of exploring these questions.

I’m currently pulling on a thread where I am spending a lot of time thinking about Theses on Feuerbach by Karl Marx, the short but famous formulation wherein Marx “turns Hegel on his head.” Feuerbach’s formulation of God that begins the process of turning Hegel’s logic against Hegel’s own conclusions, established god as the embodiment of humans own best qualities, and externalizing them as an unreachable other, and how it functions as a tool of repression and intellectual domination finds some common ground with Harris’s antireligious atheism. But this thread leads us closer to a kind of humanism, whereas Harris’s atheism leads us further away from it. Its like atheism’s main disagreement with religion is that it believes that science and industry should be mechanism that alienates us from our selves and each other, not the church. Personally, I would prefer not to be alienated from myself or from other people by any extrinsic mechanism of repression; I’d rather throw it off entirely.

They would have to have their own sorts of media

Oh enshittification is coming for Windows. In the future. Like it hasn’t happened yet or wasn’t the first and worst of these companies for it to come for. But something that hasn’t happened yet, not in the past. Interesting.

Okay, I apologize I went back and read your first post which said something like “the self doesn’t exist is a fun concept to play with” when I was pretty sure you had said just “the self doesnt exist.” I’m sitting here trying to find the thread that connects “the self doesn’t exist” with your seeming acknowledgement of every aspect of it.

I agree its useful to test “wrong conclusions” for the reasons you state. You end up constructing consistent logic justifying it, and can witness for yourself where the reasoning goes wrong, and can speculate as to why. I think it makes relating to people convinced by faulty logic and conclusions easier to relate to, as well as gives you a hint to where their reasoning is off and you cans start to argue against it

But what is experience, how can you find experience without a self doing the experiencing? I’m not trying to put it on you but it is consistent with your logic, as I understand it

Famously, Kant stripped away all his preconceptions and could prove only the subjective (I think therefore I am), whereas you seem to deny everyone their subjectivity, even your own. In any case since you’re interested in these questions, I assume then you’ll reach a better understanding of these questions, just keep studying and growing on your own terms (which is contradictory to your own thesis, but the whole is always defined by contradiction.)

I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.

But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher

Well I disagree that “we can’t find it”. I think the inability to find the self is a result of the limitations of empiricism, whereas dialectical and materialist analysis has no problem locating the self within the changing relationships that define the individual, history and nature in context of each other.

And this is what empiricism really fails at: its great at defining an object, defining the parameters that constitute it, and isolating it as a subject of study, but absolutely falls short at being able to identify the relationships between “things” or the historic circumstances that give rise to them.

As observers, an over-reliance on one theory of knowledge, or epistemology, verges on the kind of ideological blindness usually associated with fringe fundamentalism. We wouldnt us a ratchet to hammer a nail, why would we insist that a single epistemic “tool” is the only one that is capable of determining truth?

Honestly I probably agreed with you more some years ago before reading Sam Harris’s Free Will, which was so bad it set me on a very different path of inquiry.

So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.

Way to stay on message

No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.

I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.

So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.

But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.

But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.

I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.

But the self can be shown to exist, unless you deny the existence of subjectivity. this leads to hard determinism, what you referred to as no free will.

The productive, creative process itself, the drive to learn and be curious, to investigate, all of this leads to the conclusion that 1. There is some kind of greater will guiding us or 2. Humans have the ability to make determinations based on their experiences, and choose certain actions based on those experiences.

I’ve seen the deterministic argument that free will is an illusion caused by a chain of circumstances, but I don’t buy it. I think that the view that free will is an illusion is itself a logical error: the result of a dependence of the tendency of dualism to try and turn everything into objects, rather than seeing each object within its relationships, coming together to form a totality. This tendency leads to vulgar empiricism and positivist views. These views always obscure social relationships, which are real, measurable and predictions can be made based on them.

The “I’m so deep I’m a nihilist” trope has got to go. Every TV show or movie where there is some supposedly hyper intelligent character, they always have the most vile, garbage philosophy.