Risk and Covid-19

I’m going to take a risk. This risk that I’m going to take has to do with a view on Covid that is not particularly popular right now. 

I imagine it is very possible that I could get all sorts of hate replies from it and my followers will go from, like, seven down to, like, two.

So first, the disclaimer.

I am in no way mean to devalue any human life, nor to demean or objectify an individuals suffering from sickness or any sort of suffering, nor to reprimand loved ones involved with that person and how they are probably and justifiably upset.

Let me repeat that paragraph. And go back and read it again and take it to heart as to my actual intention, where my view is coming from, before reactions might arise.

*

Here’s a video that I saw on the news earlier today.

Now, in the context of the reported devastation and visceral fear that surrounds most people in our world society, if we are ethical then we watch that video and our fears and emotions are confirmed. We think, “oh my God! That child might die from Covid and the family has no idea where it came from. And humanity is in severe dire straits with this virus! Oh my god that’s terrible and sad. Masks might not be sufficient. Sequestering at home and staying away from loved ones and friends might not be sufficient. This devastating killer disease had made it into a house that was doing everything they were supposed to! COVID-19 is very terrible and I’m so scared and oh my gosh somehow I also feel confirmed in the measures that we are taking, because we are all in this together.”

And we watch the video, and at least on the news it was reported that the kid has fully recovered. And thank God. I’m absolutely happy that this child got over the sickness and didn’t die and I’m very happy for his family.

Consider this:

The last time I had the flu, I had flu A. This was four months ago. I went from a sore throat on Saturday at work, to coming home fatigued and a little bit stuffy headed with a headache and fairly sure that I had a cold. Waking up the next day feeling like shit and by noon on Sunday I took the advice of my wife and I went to the urgent care and I had 103.4 temperature. I felt like absolute hell. I could barely sit up, I actually did drive to the doctors and back home. I had a nagging cough that I could not stop coughing and so that whole night at first night, and even the second night, I barely slept because I couldn’t stop coughing. And by the third day my temperature had gotten down into normal area and all in all I was out of work for I think five days.

My question goes to why are we not posting videos of people when they have the flu?

What virologists and the people who are studying the virus seem to be discovering is that Covid 19 does not have a significantly greater mortality rate than the flu, and likewise generally the same number of people get positive for Covid as they do the flu. I think the difference between the two is the contagion possibility. It’s something like the flu infects 1.5 people per infected person, and Covid infects 3 people per one infected person, or something like that.

If you watch that video that I posted a few before this, made by one of the doctors who is studying Covid globally, he asks the question if all this reactivity, all these precautions that we are putting on society to prevent a sickness that has the same pattern, the same morbidity, the same infection proportion as the flu, is worth all the secondary problems that are arising because of these social precautions.

He talks about many that I’ve already thought about being in the mental health field:

— Alcoholism is the first one that came to mind for me. If someone was yet potentially an alcoholic, who still went to their work and was functional and didn’t drink at work and was otherwise a good parent say, now is not working and is at home with his family members who they don’t really see that often nor have to involve themselves with, and it’s probably been that way for years — now all of a sudden all the family members have to get along under the added stress of no income. Having to deal with each other all day long where as before they had various natural outlets. Now that individual can go get a beer or scotch or whiskey anytime they want to throughout the day. So I thought of how many more alcoholics are going to be created because of these precautions that we’ve put in place. And how is all this alcoholism going to affect the family and society over the next 5,10, or 20 years of these people now attempting to get and stay sober and get back to the productive lives?

The next ones I thought of is

– depression

– suicide

– anxiety

Then:

— spousal abuse and domestic violence.

The doctor in the video points out how Covid will be solved at least in the next year or so,but the victims of domestic violence, the individuals as well as their families are going to be affected for the rest of their lives in a way that Covid will just be a thing that was an interesting phenomenon.

–Child abuse.

Here we have a parent whose ability to parent is based on them not being around their family member for at least a third of the day, not including the third that they’re sleeping also.  The doctor points out That the rate of child abuse is up. How many decades is that child going to have to deal with this short period of time? How much social money, social services, psychological effort is going to go have to go into this child as an adult getting better and hopefully not implementing abuse Upon thier own children?

And then the one that I hadn’t even really thought of that really stuck out to me:

–Child sexual abuse. 

Parents And friends and family members are starting to more frequently abuse the children of their own household sexually.

Why?

I am not making the argument that somehow we should let everything go back to normal, or whatever.

But I am bringing up the very valid question about what trade-offs are we making based on fear and ignorance?

And what about the mom who made that video and posted it? What kind of trauma did she go through and thinking that her child had any more potential of dying then if he would’ve had the flu? Would she have been so nervous if her child had flu a, for example? Would she have entertained the possibility that her child was going to die if it was the flu?



Risk 2…

So what do I mean when I talk about Heidegger’s risk and his support of nationalistSocialism? 

Right off, I definitely do not mean that ones philosophy should be founded in a type of social activism. Indeed philosophy in the loose sense in the larger sense can be said to be a kind of Political philosophy, like someone’s philosophy of human rights or gender equality or merchant access; for sure one needs stand up for their philosophy in this sense. But likewise we should be more so skeptical of the view that see his philosophy as primarily, essentially and inextricably linked to social activism; I do not believe that The veracity of a philosophy need to be evidenced or proven by some sort of social activism, for example marching on Washington or something. Yet it is by this determination and apparent orientation that we find an impossible partition between essential, what we might call, cosmological substrates, The political ideological realm being that what we call ‘real’. 

No; we are not associating Heidegger’s risk with this type of philosophicalorientation. That he is perceived within this orientation to perhaps have taken a risk of that same sort is based in the type of argument that I call redundant. For sure there is a Heidegger that took an ideological risk in his move toward nationalist socialism; but this is not the only Heidegger. In fact that Heidegger is a phenomenological being.

And so in reference to Derrtida’s book “of spirit”, we can begin to find a more significant meaning to Heidegger’s destitution of spirit. 

Though I have yet to begin my reading of “logical investigations” (Husserl; Hs mentor), I feel it is not difficult from the pool limitary sketches that I’ve come across of phenomenology to understand Hursserls General form, and though I will approach his books with an open mind through a tabla rasa if you will, I am fairly confident that the reading of his material will only serve to and large in the ways by which to speak about what is said; I am eager and hopeful, though, that reading of logical investigations will completely disrupt not only my preliminary understanding of him but likewise my whole view upon the universe. We shall see. 

If we can trust a certain generic and typical historical presentation, The common of history given us, then it is not difficult to agree with Sartre that Kierkegaard may have been the first exit stencil lis then it is not difficult to agree with Sartre that Kierkegaard may have been the first Existentiaist, but more that the break had most probably already occurred with Hagel such that Kierkegaard became necessary. We find then by Heidegger the voicing of the situation as it was already becoming apparent the destitution of spirit. The desperation of Kierkegaard was only slightly an earlier indication, and Hursserl then appears to be, if you excuse my crass language, and almost frantic attempt to re-suture what so Obviously and apparently was drifting apart. With Heidegger we have the Mark of the ship drifting from its mornings. The move towards nationalist socialism and the question that involves Dasien creates the condition of post modernity through the doubt involved by the risk invested in the discourse evidenced of Heidegger work. 

For the risk was exactly that: The question that moved the enlightenment within a singular force was brought upon itself to question by the movement of world forces. We find that, in effect, Dasien was defeated in World War II. Make no theoretical mistake. 

The desolation of world was brought by the destitution already invested in the question as evidenced by the discourse of the question itself which is Dasien. The risk of Heidegger was the inherent possibility of the question itself manifested indeed as world as argued by Heidegger. What is apparent then and now is that no one gives a fuck. The question thus resides in whether or not we resort to finding truth in a common humanity, which is to say in the majority view, the route wherein the mojority find identity in religious comfort. 

If we understand Heideggernot as a proposal of what might be occurring, which is to say as an argumentative proposal , but indeed a reflection of what ‘is’ occurring as a ‘has’ occurred, then we can do one of two things, but actually three. 

The first is what I call conventional. This approach takes material within a scheme of essentially valued orders. A scaffolding of real truth. In this arena various authors and ideas are commodities to be used within fashion and fad to establish identity move careers and make a happy living . In this course it erects and maintains the political idea logical economy of real things. 

The other two concern Dasien in its originary sense, we might say and it’s true sense. Here, similar and largely correspondence with conventional route , either we take Dasien as an essentialcategory of being human and transcribe the meaning of Heidegger’s work into the ever present moment of transcendental being and use his ideas as platforms to make further statements upon what might be real of being and time and such; or we already understand Heidegger and what has occurred and find that indeed the spirit is destitute, which is to say marginalized, denied,  suppressed and oppressed, and ultimately colonized for the purposes of real effort. 

It is thus the contradiction involved in the irruption ofDasien, of its construction of dis-truction, de-construction, that allows for the discernment of reality and what we should call the divergent thesis. This last can announce the large misunderstanding involved in the appropriation of Francios Laruelles non-philosophy, and speaks to what he calls ‘Christ’. 
The risk of Heidegger is that which is confirmed in the fact that I may have anything true to say of Heidegger in this moment. The risk of Heidegger exactly was no risk; because he risked everything. The move towards nationalist socialism which appeared to be a rising through German idea list philosophy is the ironic confirmation of spirit destitute for real determination that we now call capitalism. Those are the terms that designate what reality may be the situation will always remain the same: Spirit does not rise and fall within the coordination of an essentialist doctrine of manifested discourses. On the contrary; we might be able to speak of the his store cool manner of being human in the world as involving two oscillations, to paths, that at times coalesce in a certain manner to coordinate being and historicalevent, , and at other times diverge such that the coordination is no longer salute and the unitary meaning of discourse crumbles into multifocality. 

Risk…

Original post titled “Falsification”,   It’s a very good outline and another reason why I tend to say that a science of philosophy is possible, but we have to take risks. Philosophy does not take risks upon its own ideas for the most part. It take risks within a career mentality, if I may stretch a term, philosophers take risks with their identity, which is to say that they’re proposing an idea that they have come upon through their intuition upon the world of transcendence. The risk is entirely  theory, for they’ll sit there and argue their proposal which is their academic identity, which is to say The risk is utterly speculative and philosophical and not scientific. 

Instead the risk I talk about appears as a scientific risk in the sense of this post below. That a science may be found through the assertions that propose a test that has nothing to do with whether one is arguing it’s truth or not; it is theory in the sense ofhypothesis of evidence. As I have said elsewhere , to argue a set of postulates , to construct a structure of meaningful phrases based upon the logic that orders the ability of such structures to make sense, merely stands upon pedestals similar to that of Freud and marks and the like mentioned in the post below. The true test, The scientific test , The test of fact , comes not through perpetual ideological restructuring and reducing of terms to relative motions of human interactions — these are political and ideological arguments of real ideological space; The true test comes in what is repeated , what repeatedly arises as the occasion for such ideological strides and maxims . The facts, then, can only be found in the motions of time,  despite how we might argue such theoretical ideas, strategies of argument and debate.  The proof of the fact of a Theory will be found over an extension of that theory applied to actual circumstance of history. And this is not found over a mere 10 or 20 or even 50 or even 100 years ; it is taking us nearly 3000 years just to be able to come to this idea of what might be a factual philosophical basis . This is what we can mean when we talk about historicity, The fact of history. It is not so much about whether Marx was correct so far as I can use a particular argument to argue Marxist view upon the world and its political ideological unfolding’s; rather what might be true and factual of Marxist Siri is what is subsequently shown in the actuality of historical unfolding. That’s sweet don’t fall into the category of Marxist arguing it is this way as in the post below or Existential arguing it that way,  or empiricalist arguing it another way; all such arguments fall into identity politics. The fax that arise out of the description of what is occurring in these identity politics will indeed be a philosophical science or a science of philosophy and that can only be found over an extension of time and history. The risk one must take is to suspend his present identity for the sake of the historical possibility, to make proposals upon the past but as well the future, definite and specific statements of facts that risk being countered. 

This is why we have the big names. Heidegger took a risk with his support supposedly of nationalist socialism. 

And this is indeed what Kierkegaard talked about so far is Abraham and being a night of faith. 

This is why we talk about ways of knowing, routes of meaning; these are not epistemological byways of one unitary manner of understanding, of one true and ubiquitous reality world. They are ultimately different manners of appropriating objects. 
REPOST: 

Falsificationism

One problem with professional philosophy—and this holds for some of the sciences too, like physics and biology—is that the subject matter is difficult to master and require a great deal of time and technical training. This does not, however, stop philosophical concepts from spilling over into popular discourse, where they are usually poorly understood, or […]

epistemology, logic

https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/falsificationism/