. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false — Alkis Piskas

Well aren't we all objects? We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space. But we are objects that are aware. So are cats, primates, and AI robots all of which could have some level of conscious awareness that we can identify as more similar to our own than a dead clump of Rock.

So objects can have the quality of being sentient. And that allows them to assume subject status also.

So what is it about an object that makes it possess awareness? For me I would say it is the ability of it to process and store information, sufficient to gain control (autonomy/agency) over its own stability (survival) and that demands complexity.

A "Self" in this case is that system which defies subjugation to the random disorder and chaos of the universe.

What else has tableness? — javi2541997

Are you sure nothing has tableness? I would argue that anything that can be used as a table has tableness.

I know it is not an innate natural property of things. But rather an applied one. Some qualities/properties are artificial (created by and only relevant to humans/human activity).

Does that mean it exists? If it isn't a natural quality like "weight", "texture" and "size"?

I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition.

Humans create new existents all the time.

From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). — Alkis Piskas

I think I can. "I am my continued survival". It is self proving in that to "be" I must possess (have) that characteristic of continued survival.

The reason we have "have" is because it not only pertains to what we intrinscally are (I have blood, I have a pulse etc) but extends outside ourselves to I have a car. "is" does not serve this same function. I can't say "I am this car" (I have a car).

So in summary "have" and "are" can be the same but not always. They're like a Venn diagram with overlap but also isolated subsets.

I think these are just linguistic idiosyncrasies. I can say I am a body, therefore I am partly a brain (as brains are parts of bodies). In this case I removed the verb "have" and replaced it with "am".

A water molecule "has" 2 bound hydrogens and an oxygen, it also "is" two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen bound toghether. I see little difference in the impact of the use of "has" or "is" on the definition of the thing.

What something "is" can often be defined by the qualities it "has". If a dog has no dog like qualities "is" it still a dog?

I think the pedantics of language often hinder conveying meaning.

Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning. — javi2541997

I think in some capacity it does also. In the sense that tables have evolved in their intricacy with the improvement in woodwork, metal and glass technology. But a slabstone settled on top of some rocks naturally were probably the first tables we used. The least effort to construct them as they sit readily available along most river banks.

Interestingly, the very act of applying a new term to it can open up potential for innovation. If a tribesmen points at a slab and says table, and his child asks why is it also table and not just a slab of rock? And he explains because we use it as a flat surface for food prep/eating. Then naturally, one can think oh in that case a table does not have to weigh 2 tonnes and could be made of wood instead and therefore be mobile and have improved function. The child could then go off fashioning something entirely new - a wooden plynth on four legs and et voilà "a better table".

So in summary - giving something a new name differentiates it into a subcategory which outlines the qualities that it has that others in the set do not.

Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness?

What something "is" and what something "does" are interchangeable in that sense.

It is a good question, indeed.

For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.
42m — javi2541997

If no one thinks a table exists or rather if no one has ever seen/encountered/made a table does it still exist?

Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness?

Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Meaning for me is applied: it is something born out of utility and/or form - both of which are dependent on a conscious agent.

I am not assuming how it is like to be a stone or a cat. I only maintain that it's experience is not like human's. I would say that's a fair deduction. — TheMadMan

I agree. If a stone has experience at all it is for sure not the same as a humans. But we are philosophers, stones are not, as far as we can ascertain, philosophers stone aside lol.

What I mean to say is that either consciousness is a product of the material, and a stone - being material - is not removed from that, or, consciousness is separate from the material, then we must assume it is some strange fundamental, one that can be begotten by complexity of material processes, enhancing the effects of it, as sentient agents can exert huge influence on their world through being conscious.

In either case, consciousness exists, how it exists, and how its effects are amplified are up for debate, but its clear that natural laws permit its existence, if not neccesitate it.

That to me is quite profound.

. There are political aspects as well, with a question of whose subjectivities are considered important in the power hierarchy. — Jack Cummins

In a dictatorship, the only subjectivity of importance is that if the dictator. Everyone else are mere pawns at the whim of autocracy. A democracy on the other hand favours the proportionate influence of an individuals say - that is to say every vote counts towards to collective outcome/decision.

Hierarchies are not neccesarily bad. It's how they come about that matters - by force or by collective choice.

A stone, a cat and a human possess different capacities of embodying consciousness. — TheMadMan

Are we not inherently biased in that the only form of consciousness we can know is our own? If there were multiple forms of consciousness (such as that of a cat) and we are but one, how do we measure others without making direct comparison and conclusion based on our own?

In essence, if our only means to make sense of consciousness is to anthropomorphise it, is that not very limiting. Like measuring what is human-like in a stone. A stone could equally qualify what is stone-like in a human.

That's a very nice view. That the universe is consolidating its subjectivity and that we can further it or oppose it with futility.

My question then would be, in your opinion, why does the universe want to be fully conscious? And why wasn't it fully conscious from the beginning of that is the ultimate goal?

How can you be a body and have a body at the same time? — Alkis Piskas

Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain - it is one part of my whole body. A brains purpose/ function is to have a conscious awareness. That would be in this case what a brain does.

Having a body - is a subjective perception - the product of the Brains function. The brains consciousness has an awareness of possessing a body.

They would be two sides of a one function. A body allows for a brain. A brain allows for the sensation of having a body. If a body breaks down/deranges, it cannot support its brain. If a brain breaks down/deranges - it is not compatible with its body and commits suicide.

Having something (that which consciousness possesses) and being something (consciousness) are compatible. I see no paradox here personally.

So, there is content-less subjectivity as pure awareness which through attention it interacts with matter thus creating the 'self' (reflective narrator), which is enacted in mind-body — TheMadMan

Would this content-less pure awareness continue as the body/material vessel decomposes at death and transfigures/is recycled back into the ecosystem?

As in, is the content-less pure awareness an intrinsic property of physical interactions, something that arises from energy and matter Interplay? This would separate it from identity (perception of self by discrete definitions or "content").

If the content-less pure awareness is a constant underlying manifestation of physical "living bodies", it suggests pan-psychism. That everything is capable of contentless pure awareness fundamentally but can only manifest as an identity/ agent through "being" a physical system. A body. A thing.

This point of view would knit well into ideas like Gaia, mother nature, or God.

My disagreement to OP is that "I" as consciousness and "I" as a body are not on the same level of "me" as being. — TheMadMan

If they are not the same surely they can be separated? Can we take away ones consciousness without affecting their body in any way? Can we take away ones body without affecting their conscious experience in any way?

So far I think this is not possible. They're mutually dependent. At most I would agree that they are different facets if the same thing. 2 sides of one coin.
But if my body is working, then I'm probably aware, and if my body has been broken (brain trauma, severe illnesses, death etc, then probably my consciousness as that individual is also affected).

If they are truly separable, then we are talking about the afterlife. Where one's sense of self can fully be removed from the corpus.

It seems to me like every object is a subject and every subject is an object to some non-zero degree. It seems to be one of those things in the universe that has two opposing but complimentary sides, like cause and effect (every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect). These type of things at first are a little trickier to think about and parse than the average thing since they can't exist on their own (like magnetic monopoles). — punos

Very true Punos. I agree. "harm" is a concept we apply to subjects rather than objects. And yet we can harm by stealing objects, by destroying the environment, because those objects are valued by subjects. Anything valued by a subject, when taken away, "harms/offends" that subject.

So in essence subjectivity is almost "extended" not only to individuals but to their possessions (objects).

"Self" in this case is not just the body. As much harm can be done indirectly by affecting objects that ultimately affect the well being of selves - individual or multiple.

The ecosystem is probably the best example. Our planet is typically seen as a resource (object) but treatment of that resource impacts the wellbeing/survival and security of all subjects. It seems then that the earth ought to be seen as a subject in its own right - which many people do: Gaia, mother nature, Pandora (avatar), God etc.

Everything is connected: objects and subjects. What ought we value? How ought we live?

'By now you should have got to the stage of just seeing other people as objects, like chairs and tables'. I simply didn't know what to say, to a careers officer who had such a philosophy approach... — Jack Cummins

Definitely a red flag. Sadly many CEOs, experts in capitalism, tech/data mining, lawyers etc see people as just that - objects to be manipulated to their own fiscal advantage.

Part of the importance of viewing others as subjects rather than simply as objects is recognising their values and meanings — Jack Cummins

Of course. And that is where ethics begins.

A empathiless psychopath dismantles a victim to see what's inside. He/she does it because its interesting to them maybe? I don't know. But to the rest of us we are horrified because they've murdered something of value to us - people. And we can empathise with the victim, their family, friends etc. We can reflect on what 8t must have felt like for the victim - the fear, the suffering. To us its a grotesque tragedy. To the psychopath they don't get what the big deal is. They may understand the theory/cultural reasoning of why its wrong but to them its only a theory.
So they repeatedly offend.

On a more cheery side to treating people as objects: Surgeons and doctors do it all the time, as they have an objective mechanical goal backed by scientific experiment to improve the physical workings/function of the body and bring about a state of improved health/quality of life.

And while surgeons/doctors may cause some harm/pain in their effort to cure, they generally have the greatest of empathy for people - bound by the hippocratic oath (something that defines the intrinsic subjective value of a person as well as the right intentions required to address their health needs).

So in essence, treating people objectively isn't always bad. But one requires the correct approach and intentions.

what would you suggest in lieu?

My attention is fixated upon the proposition that in some way we could make 1 +1 = 2 + 1. — alan1000

Mathematically you can't. As it's formal. But if you apply it to actual reality, if you have 2 different things, they create a third phenomenon - the transitionary state

For example if I have an apple and a background/backdrop - yes I have two different things, but I can point to the border and say that it is a third quality - the transition between the two states. Its neither the apple nor the background. But confers the definition to each.

You can't have two defined poles/opposites without the central graduation/abrupt change between the two definitions.

In essence any definition requires three things: definition of the first thing, definition of the second thing, and the information pertaining to the contrast, the parameter that distinguishes them, the change, the defining aspect itself, the boundary.

I hope that explains how 1 +1 =3.
Dark + light = 2 plus 1: the point at which they change from one state to the other. This is not strict formal mathematics, I don't pretend it to be, but rather the empirical observation written as "things/components" of the experience.

In that sense, if you have nothing, and you at one existent, you have three states, the existent, the field it exists in, and the boundary between them.

Fibonaccis sequence follows the number of "existents" rather than the number of just physical objects, as maths would.

It is a counting system that doesn't presume anything other that previous "existents"

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God — Art48

Quick question. If God doesn't exist, why is it such a persistent archetype of human existence throughout our history as a species? Cultures don't naturally develop an innate concept for "microchips" or "a telegraph" lest they develop that specific tech. But they almost definitively have a word for God that has lasted through the ages. Generation to generation. And still persists to this day.

There isn't a single grown adult in the world that doesn't know what the word God means. It may mean something different to each person but it still a meaning. Even atheists have a concept of it for which they reject as an explanation for existence. But rejection requires acceptance of a specific paradigm for which to deny.

Why do all civilizations, isolated from one another at one point in history, persistently evolve a concept of the word "God"? It seems a permanent and permeating concept regardless of what culture or group is examined.

God in that sense is a "stand-in" for that which current knowledge fails to explain or outright disprove. An idea so massive, profound and mysterious, that at best we can just choose to not believe it has significance. Despite having no ultimate proof to that attitude.

If we replace the word "God" with "existence" , would you ask someone "Do you believe in existence?"

Firstly, nicely written OP, articulate and well thought out.

I'm going to go about this by asking you follow up questions based on what you wrote. Because sometimes questions provide just as much insight/novelty/curiosity as an answer.

This means you are the same person you were 5 minutes, 5 months, and 5 years ago, as this immaterial part of you remains. — tom111

What do we mean by "same" here, is the self only what components you're made of? Or is also qualified by behaviour, awareness and knowledge. Am I the same as I was when I was 2 drinking a warm bottle of milk and playing with blocks? Or has growing up changed me - my behaviour, dreams, beliefs/views, skills etc.

. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"? — tom111

If we suppose that different organisms have a different requirement for atoms of various elements, is it possible to use the same profile of components that makes a human to make another organism? For example if you wanted to convert me to a tree by rearranging my matter, would I need less nitrogen and more manganese than would ever be required for the composition of a human? Would there be left overs, or missing elements?

So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? — tom111

Could it be the continuity of memory - of place and time, that provides the adequate context to feel "the same" - as in to identify with past states of self. What would happen to our sense of self if we had not ability to remember the past?

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. — tom111

Does a chair have a sense of self? And could we ever prove it using only human sense of self for measure?

In a purely materialist view, the sense of self is arbitrary and a product of material arrangement and processes but means that matter has an intrinsic property of being able to be aware/perceive itself in specific arrangements

OR

Self is innate, and doesn't depend on material arrangement. Which means we would have little reason thay consciousness is a fundamental universal.

Both cases are very interesting and profound indeed.
Material cannot be fully inanimate in either case as we are proof. Because either it is animate inherently, or something called self gives it animation.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases. — Tzeentch

I think this has some truth in it. The larger a society gets the more potential for numerous various factions of minorities to develop. All with individual needs differing from those of the majority.
In a small close knit community, these are usually addressed and not that variable, everyone has a voice and knows eachother.

In a town there's likely to be some new emergent sects of society. In a city these are enhanced. On a global scale the variety of beliefs, cultures, lifestyles etc get more and more varied all the while the recognition of them, their voice, gets ever more drowned out.

I think societal norms are in competition with one another, they shift with popularity, trends, etc. The "mutation" of societal norms increases in a more volatile population and I reckon the volatility of that depends on sheer size and speed of communication.

Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

The term "mitzvah" means commandment, indicating it is sinful not to hate the wicked. Love is a sin in such circumstances. — Hanover

Makes sense. I guess in Christianity its analogous to loving the devil himself.

Moor pony instead of bicycle - it climbs better (you'll need elevation) and can feed itself. — Vera Mont

Yeah true. Much more sustainable. Not as many people would be willing to try and steal it also (if they have a fear of animals or don't know how to ride).

Bicycle - Faster travels — TheMadMan

I feel given the likely rough terrain and scattered debris, you'd puncture a tire pretty fast. Not sure if a bicycle is durable enough mode of transport but it could definitely do you a week or so of hard wear. Maybe more of you're lucky.

Grain seeds - As much as possible — TheMadMan

Good idea. For me depends on the time of year as farmland would have a lot of grain in the fields. You could just grab a few stalks and preserve the seeds maybe?

You said chose items/supplies but I would pick a fast strong dog — TheMadMan

A dog would be good for sure. Well trained one.

I rather think some will. Humans are stubborn. I think there will be roving gangs pillaging the remains of civilization, but also a number of small communities, well isolated and fortunately located, that survive and renew the human endeavour. It will take a very long time, given the devastation they will inherit, and it will be a hard, primitive life. They may even find the caches of knowledge and seeds our last generation stored up for them - unless the others destroy those, too. Whether the next civilization grows on the same pattern as this one, or evolves sustainable organizations, I don't know.
4d — Vera Mont

It's interesting to consider that militias and gangs might destroy books and sources of knowledge like civil engineering, construction, medicine etc to ensure they maintain the upper hand against these isolated communes.

It seems knowledge only prospers/ is stable in a society because in a war torn no-man's-land run by gangs of pillagers and plunderers, weaponry is trump and civilisation (law and order/ cooperation) is a threat to the status quo.

But I guess there might have been the girl and the backpack in the universe already. I'm not sure exactly. — Hanover

Haha clever :P

what is true according to humanity is what is currently most justified. However, like many things, in science for example, the justification can be overturned by new evidence.

Before the Copernican revolution, it was justified and believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, then it was taken as mere fact. Until Copernicus demontrated a better more explanatory (less subject to empirical contradiction) set of reasoning as to why the earth actually revolves around the sun.

This led to a huge revolution in our understanding of the earth's place in the solar system and advanced astronomy a great deal. Now it is taken as fact.

In truth, nothing is 100% certain, only confident. We can never exclude the possibilities that future theories may roive our current ones obsolete. Facts do not always remain facts, at best they are "almost certain beliefs".

If we had the full, total, unanimous truth, there'd be little reason to question or investigate anything as we would already have a definitive answer.

You can believe something, you can justify it, but it doesn't mean it's always true.

So, heat death is the most likely ultimate fate — universeness

I sometimes wonder if heat death is merely the transformation of actionable energy (light, thermal, kinetic, chemical etc) - observable energetic interactions, back to the un-observable - pure potential energy (as energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another).

If all energy was "potential energy" would the end of the universe not parallel the "potential" for a big bang?

Like a big spring dropping and recoiling to the starting position.

If heat death means no movement, no kinetic energy, then time effectively stops. And as Power is a function of work over time, if the denominator becomes negligible, the ability to do work. (energy) becomes more potent (potential).

Just as 1 (work) /0. 5 (time) or "2" is greater than 1( work) /0 (time) or "1" or "heat death".

If energy and time are ratios of one another, when time stops, potential is at maximum. When time starts, potential is converted into other forms of energy - diluted in potency by duration.

Entropy doesn't seem to piggyback off biology at all. — noAxioms

I didn't say it did. I said it piggybacks off natural selection, which is a statistical process that I'm sure applies beyond just biology. NS is an inclusive tenet of biology but I don't think biology is an exclusive tenet of NS. NS likely preceded it during abiogenesis and just applies to systems in general.

That is just a law of motion — noAxioms

Where does motion end and behaviour, or further yet, phenomenology begin? If newton's law is a principle of physics, and biology, its behaviours and phenomenology, don't magically appear outside of that mechanism then equal and opposite reactions can be applied to motion within biological systems, between biosystems and between them and the environment.

I am aware I'm using newton's law in more loose atypical sense but that is because I don't believe there is a different between living physics and universal physics. It's the same Newtonia physics at work.

What happens when omnigods clash — universeness

If omnigods clash they're equally matched. Therefore not omni-anything. "omni" pertains to "all". If it is not an all encompassing entity, a singular thing, then it does not possess "omni" qualities.

Well if humanity is represented as chess pieces I would argue God is the chess board/game Itself.

The pieces have predetermined characteristics - where they are allowed to move. What they are permitted to do in the hierarchy of the chess society. A feudal system. The laws.of "Chess physics".

That feudal system is based on power or ability to move. The Queen being most potent.

The ultimate power would be a chess piece that can move to any square whenever they desire (omnipresence).

And exert their effect (disqualification/removal of any chess piece) whenever they desire or "omnipotence".

And can anticipate all possible moves (omniscience).

But such power renders the game useless. As unrestricted access to power moves is hardly a power play at all. Restriction provides the scope for tactic - clever game play.

If there are no rules of gameplay (physics), there's no point in contest for the title of Victor.

in a sense yes. Combat between idéologies. When in fact ideologies always exclude the exception. Because exceptions are by nature not ideal. There is always an exception to the rule.

Rules are made to be broken.

No. The middle ground does not profess a truth. Truth does not exert or enforce itself on anyone. It merely is. The object of speculation and argument by the prejudiced.

The middle does not assert themselves. Assertion is done by those who are convinced they're correct, the oppositions, the contestent.

The middle ground is the unspoken chess board. The competitors are back or white pawns in the game.

history is written by the Victors. The truth always lies within the middle of two biases.

I guess time will tell. I think their bravery or foolishness is interpretative and applied by the bias of being at one of the two extremes.

The middle can be claimed by either side all they want. But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is inherently the middle. Of course, both sides want to claim it because it would mean majority. But the middle, by It's very nature, does not identify wholly with one polarity/bias over the other.

Just as nature does not side with predator nor prey. But rather exemplifies the dynamic itself as a neccesity to the health of all cohorts.

But alas it is neccesary. There's always a middle between two ends. Someones gotta do it. You can't have - 1 and +1 without 0. It's referential.

Haha I like the imagery conjured by your writings. But I don't think you have much to fear. The middle is usually the most ignored by both sides.

They're too preoccupied with disarming the opposite pole out of pure abject contempt/denial. Those that directly and forcefully oppose them.

In essence, bigger fish to fry than the middle ground.

Neutrality is not as threatening as the contrasting side as it embodies a partiality of agreement whilst the opposite is the greatest threat. My arms shall remain un-pulled.

Afterall, balance is stable. It doesn't get swayed or pulled upon or it would not be balance.

No. Meaning doesn't persist over time.

The world around us evolves over time. The language we use to describe it also evolves over time. And the culture in which language is contextualised too evolves over time.

Take the word "Dog" for example. Now it means something concrete.

But consider 10, 000 years in the future when languages exchange sounds, written text and usage. Assuming humans still exist, English likely won't - At least not in any form familiar to us at present. Dogs too will have evolved. And our culture will likely be very different - perhaps dogs will have been replaced with something that is more "man's best friend" than the humble canine.

The alphabet may change. And if it doesnt, the words we use most definitely will. As they have done so in the past steadily with time.

Information has an attrition rate. It is lost with time. Because memory is lost with time as well as the means to decipher it (language and context). If I write a book describing life in 2022/23 and store it somewhere safe for thousands of years, the linguistic experts of the future will at most establish an interpretative rough guide - a vague meaning, for what I said.

If we could decode the first writings of the earliest humans as they meant it then we could reasonably assume the same of future generations. But we cannot with 100% confidence. So we cannot assume the future will be the same.

The only things that may stand the test if time is mathematics and physics formulae. They are reasonably consistent with the observable universe and its innate mechanism. The words we use to describe that may be the only access future civilisations have to our language and its application in a broader sense.

In that way poetry and metaphorical language will likely be the first meaning to be lost. Mathematics and formal language the last, assuming there isn't a Copernican revolution in our understanding of the the universe in the meantime that alienates former Thought.

So, sounds like you have to pick your side, plant your flag and fight for your cause. Agree? or do you see a less binary more nuanced range of choices? — universeness

My flag is planted firmly in the middle of the democracy-tyranny spectrum. As I believe not everyone is equal in intention (moral) nor knowledge (education).ideally they ought to be but practically they are led astray by personal preference.

On paper it's pretty clear cut. Binary. That generally democracy trumps tyranny. It is almost always the healthier choice.

However, in a more nuanced sense, I don't think tyrannical leaders/dictators are automatically malign/evil.

I do think it takes a certain set of attributes to be a "Good Dictator" that are generally not common and not usually associated with dictatorship.

For example, exceptional wisdom, insight, reasoning, tolerance and patient contemplation plus an innate core desire to provide for and care for all subjects. To uphold the highest degree of of ethical imperative possible.

If a dictator is open to criticism, listening and taking on board their subjects qualms/ concerns, can accurately identify their own shortcomings and implement corrective action, they're much less likely to be malicious and cause systemic harm.

Easier said than done. As a singular person with inherent bias, prejudice etc. Any of which is their downfall.

However a "Good Dictator" differs little from those who are voted/appointed into power through likeability and promise - mirroring the democratic process with an established and uncensored journalistic review, open public critique and acceptance of resignation if they f*ck up big time.

This is why benign dictators and democratically elected presidents/leaders are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. And this the lines between tyranny and democracy become blurred.

No one is perfect, so a perfect dictator is impossible and never immune to criticism, except for the universe itself - which is an entity that dictates the laws and contraints of physics, chemistry and biology, as well as evolution that determine outright what we are capable/permitted to achieve.

Hence the reasoning behind many that God is the ultimate benign dictator. Enforcing determined law in our becoming, but our becoming being ever more open to free will (as conscious agents). Non interference but fundamentally restrictive in setup. A duality.

I hope that clarifies my position on the subject. I think balance is always in-between opposites. Progress comes from being equal part tolerable/conformative and revolutionary/innovative. Look this is how things are (pragmaticism) but here is what could be (idealism).

identity is strongly tied to behavior or innate characteristics. Identity is determined by parameters - that which defines.

A dictator is identified by their sole dictation of the status quo. A charitable person is identified by their servitude of the impoverished and "greater good" according to them.

A master/genius painter is identified by collective opinion, popularity or notierty of their work and its impact on the sphere of art, creativity, authenticity, muse and inspiration - whether one becomes an entrepreneur of a new art movement or is lost in the static white noise of mediocrity.

Celebrities are identified by their association to how "seen" they are - how influential their opinions, views, talents and contributions are recognised by the general population.

We are free in one sense to identify however we wish. That is our privacy of mind. But if our behaviour (the outcome from our perceived self identity) doesn't match the common definition - few are likely to believe us.

But the acceptance/tolerance or credence of an identity is judged by law, reasoning, culture and ethics.

If I want to identify as a criminal, many will be opposed to it. It doesn't mean I can't. It just means the identity will be met with majority opinion and whatever backlash and sanction that comes with that. If I want to identify as suicidal, again many will exert opposing effort to prevent me from enshrining the definition or convincing others of embracing it for themselves.

People can be proponents for or against any identity based on their personal assumptions of the definition. But usually it is based on whether it sits right or wrong within their personal moral compass.

The law in a strong and educated democracy reflects the collective moral conscience. That's why dictators must erode democracy and the legal system with convincing but untrue propaganda if they are to last any length in power.

Science on the other hand deals with how we all identify. What binds us as products of physics, chemistry and biology. It focuses on commonality and objective consistency that applies across the board.

Democracy starts from a system of total tyranny. The change to the former is called revolution.

Tyranny starts in a system of total democracy. The change to the former is called fascism.

It's a spectrum with the two concepts serving as opposite poles. Opposing forces. Self interest vs. Collective interest.

The variables inbetween are the quality of information spread amongst a society - the ratio of propaganda, fear, and intimidation to honest education, discourse and formal/systematic voting.

Truth verses deceit. Democracy says everyone is equal and that normative distributions know best. Autocracy says I'm the most powerful and everyone most bow to my whims as I know best.

They're also mutual existents, as they both require the other in which to oppose, be contrasted to and manifest in a dynamic.