I mean, that's impressive if you've read all of that. I sure haven't. — Leontiskos

Only in english, and years ago. Something like 15 years. I don't doubt that my reading is rusty.

But, yes. I wouldn't bother to say something here unless I had at least some reading, experience, or knowledge that relates.

Different in what ways? And what is his method? I asked for your source for your ideas about "Aristotle's view of induction," and you literally pointed to seven different works without giving any specific references. That doesn't help me understand where your ideas about "induction" are coming from. — Leontiskos

Fair questions.

The posterior analytics deals with induction, by my memory. And I want to add that I think Aristotle's notion of induction is not the same as induction today. But I grant you that I didn't give the specificity you asked for: My reading is certainly rusty.

I feel we're getting closer here now, though, in terms of not talking past one another.

The ways that Lavoisier and Aristotle are different, by my head-cannon at least, is that Lavoisier didn't question the enlightenment premises as much as pursued them and did them well.

***

I think Aristotle's method -- Lavoisier I think didn't invent a method as much as adopted one -- is to review what has been said, demonstrate its strengths and weaknesses, then show his conclusion.

And, on top of that, Aristotle had empirical verification for his conclusions.

For his "view of induction" -- I listed the sources I did because I thought thems would explain it... but maybe not. I can tell you in my own words, though, since that's more relevant to our conversation: Aristotle views induction about objects in the same way we view induction about math. Since there are no other categories he is able to say "this is what that thing is. this is its being" -- but over time we've found that his methods are, while a good guess, not quite right either.

He thinks that the world is harmonious. As I read the metaphysics, at least, all of being is within the mind of God thinking himself. Being is God thinking himself into being by thinking, and the categories apply because we can, through empirical research that climbs up, discover the essence of things.



Now, I could be very wrong in my interpretation, but since you asked for how I understand Aristotle's notion of induction I'm giving an attempt at answering that more clearly.

Though @karl stone -- you ought respond to

Subjectivism is bunk! Science rocks! — karl stone

Science does, indeed, rock.

I like it anyways.

Useful if starting a commune, which I may want to do. — unimportant

Now that you mention it -- one of the most practical ways of practicing anarchy in our world today is through the housing collective. Finding one and joining would be a way to learn from people actually doing the practice rather than reading a lot of long books, and you said you were interested in meeting up with people so that would be a good route.

For an organization that's alive today which will put you in contact with anarchists I'd suggest Food not Bombs -- it has a diverse group of people and it's activist work so it's quite literally putting the ideas into practice. I know lots of anarchists tend to frequent that organization because of how it's run, and they'd know what possible institutional resources -- such as a housing collective -- might be in your area.

BUT

I can understand that the fruit might just look too juicy to be true, and dreaming big dreams can bring one down. I'd only do it if you enjoy it rather than out of a sense that one must accomplish the mission.

Heh, fair enough. No worries.

For myself the end-goal isn't as important to be achieved -- organizing with likeminded people was enough for me to want to know how it works. But it's not like you're going to earn a living or achieve anything immediately practical by studying it -- you'll improve your mind, which is good, but in terms of whether you ought study other things or not I can understand saying "OK, sounds interesting, but I'd rather deal with something more realistic"

No, you're not being clear, you're being intellectually dishonest - admitting Descartes was self censoring, but refusing to draw the conclusion that he wrote Meditations; a subjectivist epistemology in diametric opposition to Galileo's objectivist epistemology, as a defence against potential accusations of heresy. — karl stone

Couldn't it be the case that Descartes both censored himself and expressed himself? Or must we say, because he censored himself once all of what he did in his life is an act of self-censorship, including what he said?

Heh, I've once again not been clear.

I agree Descartes was self-censoring. However, I don't think he was doing so in his philosophy, while he was doing so in his science.

With respect to his science he was self-censoring, but I don't believe he was in his philosophy.

And I'd hesitate to call Descartes' philosophy subjectivist, at least. Seems wrong to me given he wanted certain foundations for scientific knowledge in his philosophy.

I agree he was self censoring.

I'm not sure I agree he wrote the Meditations to stop the inquisition, though. I think he liked both science and philosophy, and that his published philosophy could be read as his response to his circumstances -- I can't work scientifically because of these ideas in place, and so I'll set about doing the philosophical work that needs to be done in order that science might flourish.

Cool, I don't have that deep a knowledge of the sequence of events in his life so I'll go with it.

But I know Descartes was not scared of doing science; covering himself from the ignorant, sure. And I agree he didn't think "subjectivism" is a valid epistemology -- that's not his thing. It's methodical, and not metaphysical, doubt.

He wrote the meditations afterwards -- but it's still a methodical doubt, but like you noted: People often like the question but reject the answer.

I'm pleased to see so much analytic work going on. Working through the issues is the only way to work out how to fit all these pieces together - if that is possible.

This is core analytic philosophy - looking closely at how the terms involved are being used, comparing them with formal systems we know are consistent, seeing what works and what does not. Bread and butter stuff. It's hard conceptual work. — Banno

Same.

wasn't Descartes purpose to establish certainty, to avoid assumptions? I don't think he was particularly successful. Indeed, I don't believe he believed what he claimed to believe. I think he saw what happened to Galileo, and wrote an alternate epistemology more consistent with doctrine. — karl stone

He didn't establish certainty to avoid assumptions. He did not believe what he claimed to believe with respect to radical skepticism -- he explicitly says it's a methodical doubt rather than a doubt about the world.

I think he withheld his publication of The World after seeing how Galileo was treated, but his philosophy differs from that.

Well, the anonymity won't be preserved if we add another essay, but I don't mind throwing another one that's done into the mix -- the next one won't happen until next year.

But I don't want to upset anyone either. So I'd welcome it, but can see a need for a cutoff as well.

:up: That makes sense to me.

Onto paragraph 5! ;)

Moliere I think this is what you were asking about here: — Jamal

Yes.

Trying again with some rest and your rendition --

"The meanwhile completely mismatched relationship (since degraded to a mere topos) between each Spirit and power, strikes the attempt to comprehend this hegemony by those inspired with their own concept of the Spirit with futility. The very will to do so betokens a power-claim which countermands what is to be understood."

"meanwhile" contrasts the way the technician and the philosopher operates in a world which glorifies the technician. So the philosopher has turned away from positive cognitions and instead critiques itself while the technicians demonstrate their worth through power -- the mismatch then is between Spirit and Power.

To add a punctuation mark to note how I'm reading this now...

"The meanwhile completely mismatched relationship (since degraded to a mere topos) between each,Spirit and Power, strikes the attempt...."


So the philosophers -- the introverted thought-architects who have a sense of Spirit, are struck with futility at even being able to comprehend the hegemony if the technician.

The desire to comprehend this hegemony indicates a technician's knowledge, which in turn turns one away from Spirit.

***


How's that sound to you?

When you talk about "Aristotle's view of induction," what texts are you referring to? — Leontiskos

I'm thinking about the physics, the metaphysics, on the weather, the prior analytics, the posterior analytics, parts of animals, and de anima.

The prior and post analytics serve as his epistemology -- how he goes about making inferences. One by deduction and the other by induction. His treatises on weather, the soul, and the parts of animals too serve as examples of Aristotle applying his epistemology to the world at hand. The physics serves as a precursor to the metaphysics in that it is both a particular and general science since it deals with the topic of change, itself an entry into the study of the most general categories.

I know you've read him and know him -- that's why I thought him a good example for us, and didn't think there'd be anything controversial in comparing his method to modern scientific methods and noting that they are different in what they are doing and arguing.

How many pages have you read of any of them? If they are to serve as exemplars of the putative categories you attach to them, then apparently both of us must have strong exposure to all three. That seems doubtful. I have read lots of Aristotle, a small bit of Kripke (less than 70 pages), and nothing from Lavoisier. Have you read enough of each to take them as exemplars of categories such as "philosopher-scientist"? If not, they are not going to function as exemplars of anything substantial. — Leontiskos

Yes. Aristotle I'd say I'm most familiar with, and the bit of Kripke we've been referencing in this conversation is something I've read here on the forums. Lavoisier's contribution to science is his meticulous work on making precise instrumentation, which I gather is a clear difference between what both Aristotle and Kripke are doing.

Now, readings get rusty and I make mistakes. But I'm not just using these just because -- Kripke got added to the mix, but Aristotle/Lavoisier is one I've just often thought through as a good comparison for finding a difference.

Also, what I've noticed is that between us is they are not good examples because it's only leading to accusations of ignorance and showmanship.

This is why learning to make real arguments is important. — Leontiskos

When you say this it seems like I must not know how to make a real argument, to your mind.

I'd rather say that arguments don't reveal truth as much as serve as a check to ourselves -- ah, yes, there I messed up, that inference can't be quite right.

Okay, but do you have an argument for your conclusion? Are we no longer capable of induction in the 21st century? Was Aristotle wrong that we should have wide experience before drawing conclusions? — Leontiskos

Aristotle was not wrong in his time.

But neither he nor we can make induction a valid move that secures knowledge.

I say he wasn't wrong because I can see how his inferences are good given his circumstances, influences, and concerns not just from the rest of his writing but also from others' writings at the time, as well as writings about those writings.

But I don't think we can travel by induction up to knowledge of God, for instance. I'd say there is a limit of some kind on our ability to judge on some questions we might want to answer or try to answer, but don't seem like we can reliably answer.

Because the idea that such a process is defeated if we do not consider every single scientific claim that exists or is available in our linguistic context looks like a strawman. Even if we don't look at every single scientific claim, the process is still perfectly sound. And the person who looks at more evidence will be more suited to draw conclusions. — Leontiskos

I'm not sure that the process is sound. If we don't check every member of a set it's always possible to find a black swan. If it's always possible to find a black swan then we can't make the inference to climb our tower upwards towards being and the mind of God -- and ultimately reality, all as a unity.

But if someone had something in mind other than Aristotle -- some modification which dealt with the notion that a single mind dealing with eternal categories does not bring one closer to being, but rather collective effort and distributing tasks and building trust such that we can work together, which tends to function better in an atmosphere where doubt is encouraged does.

Also, the reason I like using historical examples is because it's meant to get around the notion that stipulation of a difference between philosophy and science is uninteresting -- we can say it and put up our terms and use the terms thereon in that way, but that misses the point.

The historical examples provide a wider context other than standalone crisp definitions with syllogisms (though there's a time and place for that, too, I'm just explaining my method)
 

Are you able to say what each is? — Leontiskos

Not exactly, but by way of example I've hoped to show a difference -- Aristotle is the philosopher-scientist, Lavoisier is the scientist, and Kripke is the philosopher.

Not that I've been explicit or clear on this, really, but this is what the examples are meant to furnish -- as good examples of how to use the terms differently. The interpretation of each I'm meaning to use as why I might want to distinguish between the terms: look at what they mean and how they make inferences in these details and you'll hopefully catch onto the difference.

There won't be necessary and sufficient conditions -- I don't think we can solve the problem of the criterion, though I think falsification is still an important subject unto itself -- but there will be stark differences between two family resemblances when we compare them.

But that is relevant to the OP -- if Aristotle secures knowledge of the real through a thorough review of all of what's known and induction towards being, such that he could be in a position to say the what-it-is-ness of a thing is, its real definition stating its essence, and this is the way by which we are saying there is no separation between science and philosophy, it seems that we'd need another way to coherently weave science and philosophy into the same practice in order to rely upon the science to claim it's relevant to the question "What is real?" -- which is largely where I'm contending against not science's relevance, but an over-reliance upon science in asking that question of reality.

Basically I think philosophy and science are separate activities. That's the claim at stake from when I originally jumped with in this particular interlude.

So, for instance, I wouldn't say induction requires, but I'd say that the manner in which Aristotle's induction does. The way I see him move is securing his claim by an exhaustive survey of the extent arguments, a review of their merits and demerits followed by the conclusion of Aristotle's.

So, yeah, you'd have to figure out some other way to be an Aristotelian, at least, if you wanted to progress to metaphysical truth in the manner of induction as Aristotle practiced it.

So your argument is that <Induction requires exhaustive knowledge; in order to have exhaustive knowledge we would have to survey every scientific claim; therefore induction is no longer possible in an age with a multitude of scientific claims>? — Leontiskos

Aristotle's use of induction to reach metaphysical truths would require him to survey the prior categories before he could move upwards towards being, as I understand it. That's why he does that prior to the metaphysics, at least as I read it -- I know it could just be a nomenclature thing and not something separate from physics. It definitely fits with his general process for generating knowledge -- start with the senses and move by induction through the categories, and he usually only moves after he thinks he's considered all the options.

Not that the future couldn't be different, but now there are just that many options that this method is not feasible to do metaphysics with.

Your article says nothing at all about modus ponens, and so fails to answer my question. — Leontiskos

Blah, that's cuz I said it wrong. Modus Tollens.

Where does Aristotle say that one needs to consider every scientific claim?

Do you have an argument that connects your premise to your conclusion, or am I right that your inference was invalid? — Leontiskos

I infer that because of his method of induction -- in order for him to be able to consider being, as such, he would have to start with the lower categories and move his way up. As I read the move from the physics to the metaphysics that's pretty much how we gets to his claims to have philosophical, metaphysical knowledge.

But how is a seed not a solid foundation? That seems to be precisely what a seed is. From an edit: — Leontiskos

Because it's small and could die and remains uncertain from its inception. It only grows in certitude with growth, or gets thrown out -- but its beginning is not its end, unlike a building -- an architectonic -- which builds from a solid beginning.

Why must a metaphysical realist read and review every scientific claim? — Leontiskos

They don't have to unless they're following in the footsteps of Aristotle.

Also, a note -- realism isn't the thing I contest. I think we decide how things are real, but most of the time we believe false things -- hence, skepticism.

So X can falsify Y even when X is not true? — Leontiskos

Possibly, though there's a difference in kind here where "X" is some measurement and "Y" is some theory.

So the theory that follows is just another guess that sounds good, but doesn't have any observable measurements which falsify it.

I'm not sure what it means to say that falsification follows the form of a modus ponens. Does Popper say this somewhere? — Leontiskos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery

I would say that there is truth and falsity, and then there are also beliefs about propositions, namely that they are true or false. Falsification can be viewed from either angle, but both are interconnected.

I think TPF probably needs a thread addressing the deep problems with an intersubjective approach to truth, given how many people here are captive to it. We can falsify an individual's belief, but only if the content of that belief itself has a truth value (apart from any particular individual). — Leontiskos

Yes, I think a lot of the questions we're running across are somewhat siderails -- but I don't think it's some fundamental error as much as a difference in approach to philosophy.

I'm not proposing an intersubjective approach to truth, but to justification, though. At least with respect to beliefs about what is real.

Something to ward: The privacy in question isn't who wrote what, but rather whether a search engine can find the essay through searching our website.

So the authors will still not be revealed until the 16th.

But if there's no reason to hide them and @hypericin needs access then I vote to make them visible to search engines (while still keeping the authors unknown)

Okiedokie.

@Amity -- what's wrong with making them publicly available?

Well I know exactly what I mean by falsification. Do you know what you mean? — Leontiskos

I'd start with Popper, at least, so falsification follows the form of a modus ponens.

But then I'd say that in order to falsify something you have to demonstrate that it is false to such a degree that someone else will agree with you. Which states clearly how there's so much more to falsification than mere disagreement, or believing in two different things that cannot both be true at the same time of the same object. That's just believing two different things, so all you need is a notion of belief and what beliefs are about.

For falsification there's not just beliefs at play, there's an interplay between measurement, theory, and practioners.

Loosely speaking I'd say that for falsification to take place the two have to be talking to one another in the same dialogue. So Aristotle and Lavoisier serve as a good example specifically because they mean very different things about water while referring to the same. There's no falsification taking place as much as the dialogues are doing different things entirely. Furthermore I don't think that for falsification to take place that the next theory which takes its place will be true or even needs to be demonstrated as true. Rather, it's "good so far, and here are the ways we can test its limits" -- falsification has a whole practice of testing built into it. It's a collective activity, and not just a status between competing theories of reality.

I think that is so vague as to be saying nothing at all, — Leontiskos

I'd say it's on par with "From the more certain to the less certain"

For one, I intend the biological metaphor to apply to knowledge: and what was once a good bit of knowledge depended upon the intents of the organism using it, the whole ecology within which it fits and is responding to. Further, life is something of a cycle and the final cycle of life, just like ideas, is death -- eventually the ideas die out because the environment has changed far too much.

Further, we don't begin with a solid foundation and build outwards. Rather I'd use the plant metaphor that we begin with a seed which, when nurtured in the proper environment, slowly takes roots to the soil and becomes something solid.

So rather than beginning with the certain I'd say we make random guesses and hope to be able to make it cohere in the long run.

As above, I don't think this is a theory. Note too that if one thinks "guess and try to make sense" is a viable approach, then they already hold to the idea that reality is intelligible and sensible. They are not starting from skepticism. — Leontiskos

I don't think that follows at all. I think that what this says is that @Leontiskos can't understand how someone could think that sensibility and intelligibility are important unless they are not skeptics, rather than that one doesn't begin with skepticism.

The intelligible and the sensible are what we deal with -- but whose to say that what is sensible is what is real? That's the question after all. How do we hop from "the intelligible and the sensible" to "and it is real"?

Sure, and we could add in your new thesis about indivisibility to complicate the picture, but my general point will still hold. — Leontiskos

Well, it's persuasive to you, but not to I.

Well, is there an argument here? And is it valid? The basis of any such argument is something like <There are more scientists and scientific papers today; therefore metaphysical realism cannot be true> — Leontiskos

Aristotle's method of metaphysics which utilizes science is what justifies his inference from the sciences to support metaphysical truths. At the time one could reasonably, though falsely, believe they had reviewed "all the sciences" such that they could reasonably make inferences about "all of reality at its most fundamental". Today, however, no one person can reasonably, though also falsly, make the statement such that "And now that I've finished reviewed all existent sciences and shown how my views are better I will now move onto the most general truths about being as such"

Aristotle, though he did not have access to all science, could feel confident that he'd responded to all the worthwhile arguments so that he could link science to metaphysics.

The sheer volume of knowledge today makes it so that Aristotle's procedure can't be carried out. So one's metaphysical realism can't be on the basis of science insofar that we are taking on a neo-Aristotelian framework -- it's simply impossible to do what Aristotle did today with how much there is to know.

So the whole "From the more certain to the less..." thing will work for some particular case, but it won't reach metaphysical universality.

Ahhh, all explained. Thanks @Jamal!

Another book that I thought of that you may enjoy because it's explicitly a history of anarchism: Demanding the Impossible

Re: Style -- I can understand him writing the way he does. Where I'm writing out the short version I'm mostly doing the thing where I'm checking myself to make sure I understand the basic message as a sanity check to my understanding. The style makes sense, though, because his justifications for his philosophical moves come from a large number of philosophical concerns and comparisons; the concept simply isn't easy to write about in a philosophically persuasive way.

Also, great rendition of the prologue. I think a lot of my silence comes from unfamiliarity, so your more thorough synopsis is helping me to think through things better.

Re: the game, and cards. The game, I thought, would be what comes after having laid out how one is thinking in the first place. So the application of negative dialectics to its detractors, or towards other subjects other than an exposition of negative dialectics (albeit, it seems to me, a consistent one -- i.e. this reflection comes from a dialectical process)

“Since Hegel attempted to do the impossible, namely to apply philosophical concepts to that which is irreducibly nonconceptual, an account is long overdue of the relationship of Hegel’s dialectic to dialectics in general, and why the attempt failed.” — Jamal

Ahhh thanks. That makes sense.

I'm going to catch up in a couple of days, but I might post something about the prologue first. — Jamal

Oh yeah, no worries. I wasn't sure what to say about those so I just hopped into where I was beginning to have difficulties (page 1) -- but take your time.

I'm just going to begin with the first section in trying to summarize what I'm understanding. It's thick enough that I'm having to slow down and type out things just to make sure I'm reading it correctly. Here's my attempt at the beginning section of the introduction -- and on paragraph four I've tried to describe my confusion:


On the Possibility of philosophy.
1. Theory is once again relevant.
2. The philosopher has been overshadowed by the engineer – the engineer has demonstrated to the world positive cognition just at the moment philosophers turned on their discipline and away from positive cognitions. This to the point that philosophy appears to be a product of commodity society. (What do the last two sentences mean?)
3. The course of philosophy supports the notion that the engineer has overshadowed them since philosophy in its academic form splits into several sub-discplines, much like the scholastics of old, instead of reaching for the world concept. Where philosophy confuses the scholastic concept of philosophy for the world it de it degenerates into sheer ludicrousness, and then forgets the distinction when immanent truth is what philosophy depends upon.
4. If a philosophy cannot realize the difference between the concept and the non-conceptual which it is about it is too naïve to be worth thinking about. We must instead ask, in light of Hegel’s failure, whether philosophy is possible in the exact manner that Kant investigated the possibility of metaphysics after a critique of rationalism. There is an account which is long overdue – that account is of the Hegelian doctrine of the dialectic: a representation of an impossible goal showing that the representation is equal(fit?) to the task of (what was ultimately heterogenous to such?****
This is the part of the paragraph I begin to lose the plot on, just at the end. “what was ultimately heterogenous to such” I do not know what that sentences is referring to.

And after “an account is long overdue…” – “of its relationship to dialectics”; of what’s relationship to dialectics?

Getting lost in the pronouns on that paragraph

But, really, if you think about it I don't even know if I'll finish in the month -- I'm committed to responding to all 13 with the same amount of care, on their own terms, and I have the reading group that I intend on keeping up with -- so, in terms of time I think I can commit it's also just an honest appraisal of how long it'll take to write 13 in-depth responses to everyone on their own terms.

With pride ;)

Oh, to give me time, and just because it feels right.

My plan is to create the general discussion and "Whose who?" thread on the 15th of June, and since I've orchestrated the thing and know whose who I'm reserving my comments for after June, but will still follow through with my promise to give every submission a proper response.

I wasn't sure, so thanks @Jamal.

EDITOR: PART 2

3.6.6 The Minimal State and Structural Indifference
Nozick’s state exists to protect contracts and property. It cannot address systemic injustice. It cannot act on discrimination, poverty or precarity beyond affirming formal liberty. If someone is free to starve or live without healthcare, the theory offers no help. It defines liberty only as non-interference.

This turns liberty into abandonment. The state recedes but inequality remains. Exploitation continues but is no longer recognised as injustice. What’s left is a theory that mistakes inaction for fairness.

3.6.7 A Systematic Apology for Inequality
Nozick’s theory is not a defence of liberty. It is a defence of existing power. It grants legitimacy to outcomes no matter how they came to be. It offers moral cover to inherited privilege while posing as neutral and principled.

If radical individualism rests on Nozick, it rests on sand. What looks like a theory of justice is a polished excuse for inequality. The real question is not whether to interfere with liberty but whose liberty is already constrained and how.

What emerges is not just a flawed theory but a political project: one that praises formal liberty while shielding structural power. Before concluding, we must return to the broader implications of how this worldview reshapes institutions, reframes moral responsibility and rewrites the terms of political life.

4. No One Is an Island, Not Even A Libertarian
Radical individualism offers a seductive vision. It promises a world without interference, where each person is the sole author of their fate, untouched by history, insulated from obligation and immune to the needs of others. It is, at first glance, a philosophy of dignity and moral clarity. A defence of the self against the claims of society.

But it is also, fundamentally, a myth. And more dangerously, a myth that rationalizes inequality, conceals power and undermines the very conditions of freedom it claims to protect.

The sovereign individual of radical libertarian thought is not the baseline of political reality but its exception, often sustained by vast unseen structures, whether economic, cultural, infrastructural or familial, but that go unacknowledged in the name of self-sufficiency. The theory flatters the ego but fails the world.

It misunderstands the self, imagining identity as self-generating rather than socially constituted. It oversimplifies freedom, reducing it to non-interference rather than also enabling capacity. It obscures power, treating the absence of government as the absence of domination. It denies dependency, recasting mutual obligation as moral failure. And it misdiagnoses the problem of institutions, demanding their erasure when what is required is their democratization.

Nozick’s philosophy distils these errors into a coherent but deeply flawed system. His libertarian utopia, free from patterned justice and redistributive politics, leaves unresolved the historical and social forces that make liberty unequally available. It offers purity instead of fairness, formalism instead of justice and procedure instead of repair.

What we need is a different conception of freedom. One that acknowledges our interdependence, values solidarity and invests in the public institutions that enable each of us to act meaningfully in the world. This is not a call for collectivist uniformity or authoritarian oversight. It is a call for participatory, responsive and just institutions. In other words, more democracy everywhere that recognize the individual not as an island but as a node in a shared and fragile network of life.

This is not merely a philosophical quarrel. It is a live political dilemma. The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox is not confined to podiums, podcasts or billionaire brainwaves; it shapes public policy, corrodes social trust and legitimizes inequality under the guise of freedom.

When radical individualism is taken at face value, the result isn’t a flourishing of liberty but the quiet dismantling of its conditions: public goods erode, solidarities fray and those most in need are told their suffering is a personal failure, not a systemic injustice. It breeds cynicism toward democracy and opens the door for authoritarian figures to redefine freedom as obedience to themselves. What begins as a philosophy of personal sovereignty ends in the normalisation of power without accountability.

The freedom juxtaposed in the essay against that of radical individualism has no such paradox. The goal is not to reject individual agency but to anchor it in structures that make agency meaningful, reciprocal and just. Those who perform autonomy while depending on unaccountable power cannot escape this paradox; they can only obscure it. But we, as political agents and moral interlocutors, can resist the spectacle and demand something better: institutions worthy of trust, freedom grounded in solidarity and agency rooted in interdependence.

Real freedom is not the absence of others. It is the presence of shared conditions in which dignity, voice and action become possible. It is built not in retreat but in relationship. If we continue to treat liberty as a solitary performance rather than a shared foundation, we will not only mistake inequality for merit but we will also hollow out democracy itself. The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox is not just an intellectual contradiction; it is a political danger. One we must name clearly and confront together.

Reading list:
Isaiah Berlin – Two Concepts of Liberty
Hegel – Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Hannah Arendt – The Human Condition and In Between Past and Future
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Judith Butler – Precarious Life; The Psychic Life of Power
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1
Karl Marx – Capital Vol. 1
Robert Nozick – Anarchy, State and Utopia

By: @Benkei

Part 2:

5.
When a Tree Falls in the Forest

Plan:

Show if the tree makes a sound when no one is around.

Mainly

When forests fall with none to hear their sound,
No ear converts their waves to thunder’s round;
No nose detects the scent of broken wood,
No retina makes colors dance and bound.

Without a brain to weave perception’s dance,
No form or texture catches conscious glance;
The world remains pure pattern, undefined,
Till mind gives chaos order’s sweet romance.

See how the black hole’s entropy reveals
That surface, not volume, its nature seals;
Perhaps our depth is but projection’s art,
A hologram that solid space conceals.

Like photon pairs that mirror change through space,
Though seeming separate in time and place,
Remain one pattern in projection’s room,
Where separation yields to quantum’s grace.

The tree that falls, observed or standing free,
Is interference pattern’s mystery;
Until consciousness tunes its signal in,
Reality sleeps in possibility.

This explains how dreams feel just as real
As waking life—both patterns that we steal
From vast arrays of wavelengths interweaved,
Which mind makes solid as the things we feel.

All things connect in overlapping waves,
No true division marks what nature saves;
One vast united pattern fills all space,
While seeming borders mark illusory graves.

Like memory spread through neural matter’s field,
Where every part holds all that’s been revealed,
The cosmos lives complete in every grain,
As Blake’s world blazes in the flowers of yield.

We are the dance, the dancer, and the stage,
The cosmic story and the turning page;
Both author and the tale that’s being told,
As universe peers through its human cage.

The past may hide in holographic whole,
While present moments endlessly unroll;
Each electron’s shake sends ripples far,
As part and whole trade places, pole to pole.

Conclusion

This secret lies beneath reality’s mask:
One fundamental pattern, should you ask,
Indestructible and everywhere at once,
Performing life’s interminable task.

For all is one—no piece can stand alone,
No fragment separate from all that’s known;
The universe complete in every part,
As consciousness makes all its patterns shown.


6.
Religion’s Restraint

Aim:

Show how religion holds us back.


Main

The light of Heav’n did the Earth illumine,
When He shaped human nature’s acumen.
Temptations He then placed everywhere,
But He’ll punish us for being human!

He binds us in resistless Nature’s chain,
And yet bids us our natures to restrain;
Between these counter rules we stand perplexed:
Hold the jar slant, but all the wine retain!

What master sets a task impossible,
Then damns the slave who proves fallible?
Who plants the tree, then curses it for growth,
Or blames the river for being unstoppable?

He gave us passions burning fierce and bright,
Then commanded us to douse their light;
Like children told to swim with weighted feet,
We struggle in the depths of wrong and right.

Our maker filled our veins with wild desire,
Then bade us quench this self-implanted fire;
What potter shapes the clay to flow one way,
Then breaks the pot when it won’t flow higher?

He set sweet fruits before our hungry eyes,
Then called it sin to feast on Paradise;
What gardener tends the vine with loving care,
Then damns the grape for making wine arise?

The cosmic jest grows deeper still to see:
He gave us minds to question and be free,
Then thunders wrath when we dare ask Him why,
Or seek to understand His mystery.

Our nature pulls us earthward like the tide,
While heaven’s law would have us turn aside;
Between these millstones of divine decree,
We’re ground to dust, yet still must choose our side.

He gave us reason as our guiding light,
Then called it pride to trust our own insight;
Like birds commanded both to soar and crawl,
We’re damned if we stay low or dare take flight.

What justice can there be in such design:
To make the cup, then curse it for the wine?
To shape the heart with longing’s burning core,
Then damn it for the very heat divine?

Concluding

The riddle stands: why plant forbidden trees,
Then punish those who follow nature’s keys?
Why give us wings, then clip them when we fly,
Or grant us sight, then scold us when we see?


7.
Unfree Will


Purpose:

Show that one cannot will the will.


Mainline

The cause of the experiential is done
By the physical neurological;
We are as tourists along for the ride,
Consciousness showing what is going on.

Our thoughts arrive like winds we cannot call,
From memory’s web where old associations fall;
No will commands these patterns as they form—
They spring from hidden springs beyond our thrall.

Consciousness lags three hundred beats behind
The neural vote that’s already defined;
Our sense of choice is but a pleasant tale
We tell ourselves when truth’s too stark to find.

See how our moods swing on chemical tides,
As serotonin ebbs and flows and rides;
What meaning dwells in molecular chance,
When brain-soup determines how joy abides?

Jealousy and fear arrive unbid,
No choice in what emotions lift their lid;
While personality’s determined course
Runs fixed through sixteen channels, nature-hid.

The mirror neurons in our watching brain
Copy all they see, like falling rain;
Each observation rewires who we are,
Till watching others makes us in their strain.

That ‘I’ we cherish as our deepest core
Merely watches what comes through mind’s door;
No unique subject sits behind these eyes,
Just awareness common to all before.

And Love, that seeming sacred mystery,
Flows from hormones’ sweet chemistry;
Oxytocin bonds our hearts as one,
While reason bows to biology.

We think we choose, we think we understand,
But science shows us mechanisms planned;
Each thought and feeling, every cherished choice,
Springs from causes we can’t countermand.

In Conclusion

Yet in this clockwork dance of flesh and thought,
Some wonder still remains unbought:
How consciousness emerged from neural fire,
And why these mechanisms feel like ought.

For though we’re moved by forces we can’t see,
The very knowledge sets some wisdom free;
Perhaps in seeing through our robot’s eyes,
We glimpse some deeper truth of what might be.


8.
Time and its Blast


Intro

Explain Time, the Now, and then Time’s Ravages

Main Part

Time moves in steps, not flowing smooth and free,
Each Planck-length jump too small for eyes to see;
No infinite division saves the hare
From catching up with Zeno’s theory.

The Now we know spans wider than we think,
As consciousness takes time to form its link;
Each present moment born from what has died,
As past dissolves in memory’s swift sink.

Memory’s ideas recall the last heard tone,
Sensation savors what is presently known,
Imagination anticipates coming sounds—
The delight is such that none could produce alone!

No block-universe stores time on dusty shelves,
Though What IS might repeat its cosmic delves;
Each moment fresh-created from the last,
As reality continuous evolves.

Let thou thy certainty of the present be
Held mortgage for the Deed of Futurity,
For tomorrow’s just a gleam from afar
And yesterday’s but a cold ash of thee.

The cosmos dances through eternal space,
Perhaps to find each pattern, every grace;
No genius plans the paths that life might take,
But time tries all till some find lasting place.

At first, you sleep in thy dear mother’s womb;
At last, you sleep in the cold silent tomb.
In between, Life whispers a dream that says,
Wake, live, for the rose withers all too soon!

All’s thanks to Death’s prolonged sifting of ‘dies’,
Of the rest from the best, silly from wise,
The pointless from the pointed—selection.
Oh, through ink-black rivers we had to rise!

Hopes flitter and flutter like butterflies—
Whose forms show there can be a second guise,
Although still one chained to time’s sovereignty.
We cannot fly through time’s skies two-way wise.

Throw not life to the breeze; draft this day known,
For yesterday’s winds have already blown
And future’s currents have not yet stirred.
Forget dead airs; now’s breath is all you own.

Each frame of time marks change or stays the same,
Yet stillness seems forbidden in this game;
Forever forward flows the arrow’s flight,
As What IS writes its ever-changing name.

From star-heart’s forge to death’s selecting hand,
Time shapes all things that nature ever planned;
No blueprint laid in some primordial dawn,
But patient change writing in time’s swift sand.

When entropy claims its final victory,
And energy’s last loans no longer free,
The cosmos dims toward its darkening end,
While we arrange what brief light we can see.

The galaxies flee faster year by year,
As dark energy makes all disappear;
Each snapshot of the heavens grows more dim,
Till sister worlds can no more draw so near.

Time hurls its million waves of change sublime
Against existence’s rock time after time;
The entropic seas denude all that stands,
While we preserve what beauty we can rhyme.

Our higher mammal moment briefly shines,
A parenthesis in eternal lines;
Like Frost foretold through fire or through ice,
All paths lead where no star forever mines.

The protons fade, then electrons must go,
As particle by particle drops low;
The universe grows thin and ever cold,
While darkness claims all light we used to know.

She, last of all our kind to still persist,
Looks out upon the void where stars are missed;
The window shows but darkness absolute,
Where once bright galaxies kept cosmic tryst.

Conclusion

Yet in this death some hope may still remain,
For What IS cannot die nor show its strain;
No beginning means no final end,
As cosmic cycles turn to start again.


9.
What are the Feelings of the Seasons?

Prelude:

Explain the feelings of Spring Fever, Summer Joy, Autumn Color, and Winter Rest.

Once again, I have lived through winter’s chills,
To see another spring of daffodils.
Eager sap rises in my veins and thrills,
As the sun pours life into my tendrils.

Like trees that slumbered through the frozen night,
My spirit wakes to touch the growing light;
Each cell remembers ancient rhythms true,
As winter’s dormant dreams take verdant flight.

The same force lifting flowers toward the sun
Now stirs my blood—two currents merged as one;
No difference between my quickened pulse
And spring’s green tide that sets the sap to run.

My fingers spread like leaves to catch the ray
That coaxes sleeping buds to greet the day;
My roots, though city-bound in human shoes,
Still feel Earth’s call to join the spring’s display.

This body, winter-stiff, grows supple now
As warming breezes touch each waking bough;
The same sweet urgency that greens the grass
Smooths age’s frost from every limb somehow.

Mark how the daffodils, so lately dead,
Thrust golden trumpets from their earthen bed;
While in my heart, joy’s yellow blooms unfold,
As winter’s grey thoughts flee my flowering head.

Each spring reminds us we are nature still,
Despite our walls and ways of human will;
The same wild force that breaks the seed’s dark shell
Cracks winter’s ice around our spirits’ rill.

My bones, like branches, creak then grow more light
As spring’s warm magic melts the winter’s spite;
Each year this miracle returns anew:
Both garden’s growth and human heart’s delight.

The border blurs ‘tween flesh and flowering things
When April’s resurrection anthem rings;
We’re all Earth’s children, reaching toward the light,
As life’s tide rises on its annual wings.

For what are we but nature’s knowing part?
The universe grown conscious, grown to art;
Yet still we share the daffodil’s wild joy
When spring’s sweet season sets the sap to start.

Joy and exuberance are spring’s largesse;
Sunlight, warmth, and growth are summer’s bequest;
Autumn brings wealth, with its mellow harvest;
Winter’s fruit is peace—its bounty is rest.

See how each season brings its special grace,
As Earth wheels onward through eternal space;
Each quarter of the year bestows its gifts,
As nature’s dance moves at its measured pace.

Spring scatters treasures with a lavish hand:
The crocus jewels that stud the wakening land,
The silver songs of birds returned from far,
And green flames spreading at the wind’s command.

Her wild exuberance knows no restraint,
As buds burst forth with joy that needs no paint;
Each morning brings another miracle,
As life responds to spring’s sweet, wild constraint.

Then summer stretches golden arms out wide,
As warmth and plenty spread on every side;
The long days overflow with growth’s delight,
While solar blessing bathes the countryside.

The garden’s bounty swells beneath her touch,
As fruits and flowers ripen overmuch;
Each leaf spreads wide to drink the living light,
While verdant shadows offer cool’s sweet clutch.

When autumn comes with harvest’s mellow crown,
The fields bow heavy, dressed in russet gown;
Each tree presents its own particular wealth,
As nature’s riches rain their sweetness down.

The vineyard’s purple, orchard’s red and gold,
The granary’s treasure more than barns can hold;
While nuts drop plenty on the forest floor,
And berries offer wealth of flavors bold.

Conclusion

At last comes winter with its gift of peace,
As nature’s frenzy finds its sweet release;
The busy world slows down to take its rest,
While snow’s white silence bids all striving cease.

Beneath the frost, life dreams in quiet deep,
As roots and seeds their hidden wisdom keep;
This too’s a bounty—time to pause and mend,
As nature shows us beauty’s quiet sleep.


BENEATH, BELOW, AND FURTHER

In succession due does the large give way and rule
To the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule,
And onto the negligibly insufficient ‘awol’
Of not really much of anything there at all.

Yet it was at this bottom here-from that the all
Of the upward progression began its call,
And so here the answer lies to the sprawl,
At the boundary where nature wrote its scrawl
Of existence upon the foam, and back and forth,
A place not necessarily like that we think it is,
A lawless, formless realm that’s ever been the quiz.

Stability too has decreased woefully,
Melting within our descending journey,
And so we must meet the perfect instability
Of the potentially perfect symmetry that cannot be,

For not only is it that everything must leak
But that there can be not even one more antique
Of a controlling factor lurking about,
For of anything else we’ve totally run out.

Here then the pulsations and the throbbings
Of the so-called vacuum that must ever swing
Between here and there, ever averaging to not much
In its rise and fall, alternating here and varying.

Here Eternity and his elemental fellow rhymes
Of Anything and Everything bide their times,
Of which they have and always had continually
All of the time of everlasting perpetuity,

And so then if one waits long enough,
Which is but an instant in Forever’s trough,
Say for a months of Sundays in donkey’s years,
Then not only do the rarest of events come to pass,
But eventually so do all things possible that can last.

By: @PoeticUniverse

Working on it, about to post.

Oh, I have no qualms with utilizing "beauty" in our reasonings about the world -- it's the determinism bit that I don't find beautiful, but terms of elegance, simplicity, and so forth indicate a sort of aesthetic base for judgment in particular scientific fields.

But I wouldn't tie those to a universalizing program like causal determinism of a physical world, or something like that. They are ways of judgment.

It's a good thing. I'm glad to have you reading along to help me realize where I'm getting lost on garden paths.