The problem here seems to be that you are not allowing that seeing activities qualifies as evidence of seeing temporal duration, yet you do allow that seeing something relatively static, an object, qualifies as evidence of seeing objects like trees and mountains. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am assuming by temporal duration we mean that time itself cannot be reduced to a moment in time. As the Planck length is the smallest measurable unit of length, there is a smallest unit of time. ie, a duration.

As you wrote:

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct.

I look at the world and can see a tree, static at one moment in time. I can also see the tree bending in the wind, an activity through time.

The static tree is evidence of there being an object, a tree, in the world. The tree actively bending in the wind is evidence of there being temporal duration in the world.

However, I believe that we approach this from different philosophical positions. I assume that you support Direct Realism (though I may be mistaken), whereas I support Indirect Realism.

From your position (if you do support Direct Realism), we perceive the world as it is, where trees and trees bending in the wind exist independently of our perception of them. From my position, the world of trees and trees bending in the wind exist in the mind.

From your position, within the world independent of any observer is temporal duration. From my position, as the world exists in the mind, temporal duration exists in the mind.

Therefore from your position, as the world exists independently of the mind, the temporal duration observed in the world exists external to any observer. From my position, as the world exists in the mind, the temporal duration observed in the world exists in the mind. It follows that for the Indirect Realist, whether there is or there is not temporal duration external to any observer is unknowable.

Still clinging to the narrow perspective of philosophy writing, then? — Amity

Still clinging to what was asked for in guideline 4) "Must fall under the broad category of a philosophical essay."

Still clinging to the meaning of the words "must" and "philosophical essay".

As I said, it's basically the same way that you can know anything about the environment which you live in. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know about my environment because I can see trees and mountains. But my experience of temporal duration only exists in my mind, and is not something that I can see in my environment.

Therefore, I cannot know about temporal duration in the same way that I know about my environment.
===============================================================================

You can be an extreme skeptic, and deny that you can know anything, but what's the point? — Metaphysician Undercover

A sceptic may deny that trees and mountains exist in the world. However, a sceptic cannot deny that they experience a sense of temporal duration.

Even for the sceptic, there is a difference between what exists in the mind and what exists outside the mind.

As a philosophical essay, this paper lacks a clear introductory thesis. No matter how interesting each part may be, there is no clear thesis that draws them together into a cohesive whole.

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Judge" is a much better word to use here than "perceive". — Metaphysician Undercover

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "perceive" can mean i) to attain awareness or understanding of, ii) to become aware of through the senses.

As regards sense ii), I perceive something and judge that it is a tree.

As regards sense i), I perceive not a moment in time but a duration of time. Judgment doesn't come into it

In order to be able to perceive not a moment in time but a duration of time, I must exist not at a moment in time but within a duration of time.

If I exist within a duration of time, how can I know that I exist within a duration of time?

No, my experience is not "me", it is a part of me, just like my heart is, and my brain is, except it is a different type of part of me, a different category. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that "my experience" is a part of my being human, not being something separate.

But is it the case that my experiences are a part of me as my heart is a part of me?

My experiences being a part of me suggests that "I" could exist without them. But is this true?

"I" can exist without a heart, as long as I am on a life-support machine, but can "I" exist without my experiences. If "I" had no experiences, would there be an "I"?

"My experiences" are fundamental to the possibility of there being an "I" at all.

As there cannot be an "I" in the absence of experiences, my experiences cannot just be a part of what "I" am.
===============================================================================

So "an object moving from right to left" is not what you experience, it's an interpretation of a part of your experience, what you saw, heard, etc. The interpretation itself is another part of your experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

The words "experience" and "perceive" need to be defined. The word "experience" as with the word "perceive" has more than one meaning.

One meaning is independent of the senses and another meaning involves the sensations.

In the first meaning, contained within the mind, I am experiencing fear and I perceive their fear. In the second meaning, dependent upon the senses, I experience something moving from right to left and I perceive something moving from right to left.

When talking about being able to perceive duration, I would say that perceive is being used in the first sense.
===============================================================================

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am still interested in how we are able to perceive duration.

If I existed at one moment in time, I could not perceive the duration of time.

It is true, however, that if I did exist at one moment in time, I could compare my memory of the object being to the right at time 2pm and being to the left at time 2.05. This would allow me to perceive that there had been a duration of time.

Therefore, in order to be able to perceive the duration in time, it cannot be the case that I exist only at one moment in time, but in some way exist throughout that duration.

I can judge a duration from the viewpoint of one moment in time, but how can I judge a duration when I am part of that duration?

You're really not making sense Russel. People are not external to their experiences. Experience is an intrinsic aspect of being a human being. It doesn't make sense to talk about experiences which you are external to, or which are external to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Probably so, in that I am not explaining myself very well.

Trying analogies: i) can one hand wash itself, ii) can a snooker ball at rest start to move without any external force, iii) can the mind be conscious of its own consciousness, iv) can something arise from nothing, v) can there be an effect without a cause, vi) does an evil person think that they are a good person.

Suppose I experience an object moving from right to left. What is the relation between "me" and "my experience"? Is "my experience" external or internal to "me". "My experience" cannot be external to "me", otherwise I wouldn't know about it. Therefore "my experience" must be internal to "me".

However, if "my experience" is internal to "me" but separate to "me" then this is the homunculus problem (Homunculus argument - Wikipedia).

Therefore, "my experience" must be "me", in that I am my experiences rather than I have experiences.

So, if I am my experience, there are not two things, "me" and "my experience", but there is only one thing, "me", where "me" and "my experience" are one and the same thing.

I agree when you say "Experience is an intrinsic aspect of being a human being."

But that means there exists only one thing, "me" This one thing can be called either "me" or "my experience", as they are one and the same thing.

My question is, accepting that one thing can be aware of a second thing, how can one thing be aware of itself?

This takes me back to my analogies, how can one hand wash itself.

How can a single thought think about itself?

How can a single thought that has a duration think about its own duration?

Why not? You have a multitude of senses, a brain, and all sorts of tools within your body, which could enable you to experience the very duration which you live in. Your question is like asking how can I experience the same world which I exist within? — Metaphysician Undercover

I exist within a world of trees and mountains, but I am external to these trees and mountains.

The problem arises when I am not external to what I experience.

Can an experience experience itself. Can a thought think about itself.

Can a duration be aware of its own duration?

Dante and the deflation of reason.

It could be that reason within the modern era is less admirable than reason in the medieval world of Dante, and there has been a deflation of "reason". Or it could be that the meaning of the word "reason" has changed between the medieval period of Dante and the modern era, in which case it would not be appropriate to say that there has been a deflation of "reason".

As I understand the essay, the author argues that in the medieval period of Dante, reason is about the "will" (the faculty of the mind in enabling action), "ratio" (reason using inference) and "intellectus" (intuition), and in the modern era, reason is just about "ratio". There has therefore been a deflation of reason.

However, there cannot be a deflation of "reason" if the meaning of reason in medieval times is different to the meaning of reason in the modern era.

For example, "my universe" could mean 1) all of time, space and its contents or it could mean 2) my family, job and daily life. Even though meaning 2 is more limited than meaning 1, it doesn't mean that meaning 1 has been deflated into meaning 2, as they mean different things.

In the same way, the word "mountain" cannot be deflated into the word "river", as they mean different things.

As the word "reason" in the Dante of medieval times means one thing and the word "reason" in the modern era means a different thing, the one cannot be deflated into the other.

Also, I think that when you speak of your awareness of an event which just happened, as part of your experience of the present, I think you need to include your awareness (anticipation) of an event which is about to happen, as part of your awareness of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can I perceive a duration if I exist within this duration?

I have an experience of the present, and this experience might be a moment of time or might be a duration.

Prior to this moment in time or duration is the past. My memories of past events must be part of my present experience. My anticipation of future events must also be part of my present experience.

I am aware of my existence.

If I existed outside a duration, then I could be objectively aware of it.

In order to subjectively perceive a duration, I cannot exist at only one moment in time, but must exist within this duration.

But if I existed within a duration, then my awareness, which has a duration, cannot be aware of its own duration. My only awareness could be of a timelessness.

It seems that our perceptions may not be of duration but of timelessness.

Try reading the essay carefully. Not only what the paradox is, but its effects. — Amity

That is avoiding the question.

The author describes the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox as, for example, a worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power.

This is what I call the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: a worldview that denounces power, structure and constraint while glorifying individuals who wield all three.

Nowhere in the article does the author explain how a worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power is a paradox.

It may be hypocritical, it may be nonsense, but that doesn't make it a paradox.

George Bernard Shaw's "youth is wasted on the young" is a paradox, because although initially it seems contradictory, on reflection it makes sense.

"A worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power" is certainly contradictory, but also makes no sense.

Can you explain in your own words why it is a paradox?

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no moment in time, then I cannot exist at any particular moment in time

If there is a duration of time, then I can only exist within this duration of time.

If I exist within a duration of time, this would explain how I am able to perceive a duration of time.

But how long would this duration of time be?

For example, I have the awareness of an event happening now, the memory of an event that happened 1 second ago and the memory of an event that happened 10 years ago.

Would the duration of time be quite short, such as 1 second, or limitless, which would presuppose there is no time at all.

How can we find out how long this duration of time is?

This is what I call the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: a worldview that denounces power, structure and constraint while glorifying individuals who wield all three — Moliere

The liberty paradox - more dangerous than mere hypocrisy - is shown in its extreme form. — Amity

I don't understand where the paradox comes from.

If someone denounces power yet glorifies an individual that wields power they could be called a hypocrite or could be said to be talking nonsense.

Where is the paradox?

I have read some of the comments and it might be that an opportunity is being missed

For example, one could ask whether the writing is in fact philosophical writing. Is the content philosophical or is the writing about the content philosophical?

Even if it is philosophical writing, is it a philosophical essay? A philosophical essay is a sub-group within philosophical writing.

Even if a philosophical essay, can it be improved? A philosophical essay has certain requirements. Are these being met?

This exercise is a great opportunity to learn, not only about the nature of philosophy but also about the expression of philosophy within language.

By their actions shalt thou know them. And according to their actions - rather than your imagination or their rhetoric - should you judge them. — Vera Mont

It is not about crimes committed. It is about, as you said:

Why would a man be in a teenaged girls' changing room? — Vera Mont

Have a lot of men pretending to identify as women asked to be in the teenaged girls' dressing rooms? — Vera Mont

It doesn't need to be a lot to make a problem, a few is sufficient.

That there are not a lot of deaths in road traffic accidents in London on a particular day does not mean that deaths in road traffic accidents is not a problem.

As the article in "Feminist Current" writes

In recent years, prisons across the Western world have been allowing men who identify as women to be housed alongside female inmates, leading to sexual harassment, sexual assaults, pregnancies, and complaints from women both in prison and among the general public. These complaints have been mostly ignored by governments and those with the power to do something.

The difficulty is being able to distinguish between someone identifying as something and someone pretending to identify as something, which is one of the themes of this essay "The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox".

Neither wants to appear authoritarian because in a culture that values freedom and individualism over authoritarianism, that would look ugly. — Harry Hindu

:100:

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like? I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices? — Harry Hindu

Our daily lives are more impacted by radical institutionalism than radical individualism.

The hermit in Alaska, as an example of radical individualism, has little affect on my life. However, the European Union, as an example of radical institutionalism, does have a wide-ranging negative affect on the lives of European citizens.

Radical institutionalism is either authoritarian or very close to it.

Therefore, it is the radical institutions that we should be the most wary of, especially when they present themselves as supporters of the individual.

It is not so much an Authoritarian Liberty Paradox, but rather an Authoritarian Liberty Hypocrisy.

The leaning may now have gone in the opposite direction, that all 'biological males', including those who wish to become women should be viewed as potential 'rapists'. — Jack Cummins

Yes, radical positions are not helpful, whether radical individualism or radical institutionalism. Voyeurism might be a less radical explanation. Even so, 3.8 billion years of life's reproductive evolution on Earth is difficult to ignore.

It seems to me that the answers lie between the two extremes — Harry Hindu

So it seems to me. Neither radical individualism nor radical institutionalism.

Why would a man be in a teenaged girls' changing room? — Vera Mont

Just ask a man!!! :rofl:

The common sense of an authoritarian: Donald Trump signs order proclaiming there are only two sexes. In what Trump's administration has branded a "common sense" order, the government will recognise only two sexes, ending all federal funding or recognition of gender identities. — Amity

Also the Supreme Court in the UK, who have judged that legally the term "woman" means a biological woman.

Baroness Falkner, who heads the watchdog that regulates equality laws, described the judgement as a victory for common sense.

Regarding "the common sense of an authoritarian":

Are you saying 1) Trump is an authoritarian who happens to have common sense about this particular gender issue or 2) Trump is an authoritarian because he has common sense about this particular gender issue?

. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism. — Jack Cummins

:100: I agree. Who would want authoritarianism. Common sense is better.

I tend to start with the title. Then the subtitle:
The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense — Amity

Who could disagree with the title?

Who could not dislike a public figure who says that they support liberty but in practice is an authoritarian. No one likes a hypocrite.

The problem is, the thesis of the essay is contradicted by the body and conclusion of the essay.

The thesis argues that radical individualism is a political philosophy that on the one hand publicly supports the individual against the institutions but on the other hand privately supports the institutions against the individual.

Yet the body and conclusion of the essay argue something totally different, that radical individualism supports the individual against the institutions.

The essay makes no case that radical individualism is an example of Authoritarian Liberty. In fact, it makes exactly the opposite case.

In America, Trump has been harsh in his fundamentalist approach towards trans individuals. — Jack Cummins

Do you have a better example?

Not wanting a man who self-identifies as a woman into teenage girls' changing rooms is more an example of common sense than authoritarianism.

What is the subject of this essay?

The author's thesis states that "This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose"

However, in section 3, the author makes a strong case that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy.

The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern.

The author concludes that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy, even if it is flawed.

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.

The thesis in the introduction is at odds with the body and conclusion.

This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom. By examining its philosophical roots and public champions we expose a paradox at its core: the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means.

We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. Though differing in style and domain all present the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. Yet each depends on immense institutional power. Musk benefits from public subsidies and corporate scale, Trump commands state machinery and nationalist rhetoric, Peterson draws authority from platforms and institutional critique.

Within this writing are two distinct and independent topics.

Topic one is saying that radical individualism as a political philosophy is both flawed and dangerous, and in section 3 a strong case is made for this claim.

Topic two is saying that Musk, Trump and Peterson are hypocrites in pretending that they don't believe in institutions whilst in fact making use of them, for which no evidence is given.

Topic one is basically a philosophical essay. Topic two isn't.

The problem is that these two different topics are jumbled up into one piece of writing, making it difficult to unpick them.

This writing, "The Authoritarian Liberty paradox", is basically a philosophical essay that does include evidence about radical individualism jumbled up with an attack without any evidence on Musk, Trump and Peterson.

Have you ever read a philosophical essay before? — Jamal

Is this a philosophical essay?

A philosophical essay makes a claim and then defends it. Where does the author defend their claim? Where does the author make a counterargument?

There is no Aeneas without the Trojans and future Romans. He is an exceptional individual. A hero. The son of a god. Yet his desires are continually subservient to the needs of the whole, and shaped by the destiny of the whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox

There seem to be three main points in this essay.

Point 1. The author is opposed to Nozick's Entitlement Theory, which he calls radical individualism. The author is in favour of the individual as being part of a society.

As the author puts it:

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.

As you put it:

This is, for instance, not what one gets even looking at the old heroic epics. There is no Aeneas without the Trojans and future Romans. He is an exceptional individual. A hero. The son of a god. Yet his desires are continually subservient to the needs of the whole, and shaped by the destiny of the whole. Without the whole, he wouldn't be a hero.

Point 2. The author says that there are some people who pretend that they believe in radical individualism but are in fact using this to disguise their Authoritarianism.

Point 3. The author says that Musk, Trump and Peterson are examples of people referred to in Point 2.

As regards Point 2, I am sure many examples of such people can be found both in current and past administrations.

As regards Point 3, the author gives no evidence to support their claim. A philosophical essay makes a claim then defends it. The author has made this claim but neither defends it nor makes a counter-argument.

As regards Point 1, he is setting up a radical position few would probably agree with. He even calls it "radical individualism", almost a pejorative term, rather than a more mainstream term such as Libertarianism, which would have wider support.

Nozick's Entitlement Theory, radical individualism, I would suggest, would have minimal support (as the name suggests). I am sure that many figures in public life are hypocrites. The author does not defend his claim that Musk, Trump and Peterson pretend to support radical individualism yet are at heart Authoritarians.

That's pretty much the point. Institutions brought them fortune, power and fame and they're busily attacking and tearing down those institutions, in order to deprive other people of the protection they offer. — Vera Mont

Do you have any evidence that they are attacking and tearing down those institutions that brought them fortune, power and fame?

I am always willing to change my opinion if there is something that I don't know about.

[TPF Essay] The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox

I have the following comments just on the introduction to the paper.
===============================================================================

This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom. — Moliere

The essay starts with a straw man fallacy (an argument that misrepresents an opponent's position and then attacks it). Radical individualism as a coherent political philosophy does not rely on collective institutions and domination, though it may rationalise inequality. If there is a coherent political philosophy that does rely on collective institutions, domination and rationalises inequality, then it is not radical individualism.

Logically, I cannot disagree with the idea that if Radical Individualism as a political philosophy is not about radical individualism, then it is not Radical Individualism.

The author is attacking a political philosophy for something it is not.
===============================================================================

Though differing in style and domain all present the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. — Moliere

Hardly accurate, when Musk's companies employ about 110,000 people worldwide, Trump in the 2024 US election gained 77,302,416 votes to Kamala Harris's 75,012,178 votes and Peterson is Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Toronto.

The use of the word "present" is ambiguous. Is the author saying that these three people deliberately present themselves as individuals opposed to authority, or is the author's subjective opinion.
===============================================================================

At its heart lies a contradiction between rejecting institutions in theory and relying on them in practice. — Moliere

I find it very hard to believe that Musk, Trump and Peterson reject institutions in theory, as each of them clearly depend on institutions for their livelihoods.

Is the author arguing that these three want to return to a time before there were any Institutions?
===============================================================================

In the world shaped by these figures, from techno-utopianism to populist grievance to self-help transcendence, the individual is imagined as sovereign, institutions as suspect and freedom as a solitary conquest. — Moliere

I am sure that most would agree that the individual is sovereign and institutions are suspect. Institutions were created for the benefit of the individual. The individual is not there for the benefit of the Institution.

I what way would the author disagree with John Stuart Mill about the individual as being sovereign?

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. … In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

===============================================================================

What makes this paradox politically dangerous is not just its incoherence but its corrosive effect on democratic norms and public solidarity — Moliere

Any paradox in radical individualism is a construction of this essay. There is no paradox in radical individualism as a coherent political philosophy.

There is only a paradox when the paper describes radical individualism as something it is not.

There is only a paradox when the paper describes Musk, Trump and Peterson as holding opinions that they in fact don't hold, such as the dismantling of democracy. Where is the evidence that this is something they have promoted?

I have made the essays public, as promised. — Jamal

:100: After all, we are not a secret society.

I did very much like the paper, but this statement of the thesis (which occurs a few times) actually strikes me as somewhat ambiguous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I also liked the paper, and liked that it was clearly written. As Prof. Adrian Piper wrote in his article "Ten Commandments of Philosophical Writing" Thou shalt not obscure thy ideas with turgid prose.

Being clearly written then allows me to understand what the author is trying to say, even if I disagree with the author's premise that "ungrounded certainties enable knowledge", and even if I find parts of the author's essay ambiguous.

The author is standing their ground in being clear in what they are saying. This enables the reader to properly engage with their argument, even if the reader then disagrees with the author's argument. It is then up to the reader to explain why they disagree with the author's argument, thereby moving the philosophical debate forwards. Philosophy should be a dialogue, as Adrian Piper says in his article "Ten Commandments of Philosophical Writing".

A clearly written philosophical essay is the hinge upon which new philosophical knowledge may be gained.
===============================================================================

The problem I see, which Joshs gets at, is that B seems to risk equivocating re many common and classical definitions of "knowledge." A critic could say that knowledge is about the possession of truth simpliciter. It is not about possession or assent to "what is true given some foundational/hinge belief" (which itself may be true or untrue). This redefinition seems to open the door on "knowing" things that are false. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As you say, to say that hinges give knowledge is not generally how we understand the word knowledge, as being something that is universally true.

For the animalist, all things, including animals, plants and rocks, possess a distinct spiritual essence. For the animalist, their hinge proposition may be "this plant possesses a spiritual essence". This gives them the knowledge that this plant possesses a spiritual essence.

For the atheist, no thing possesses a distinct spiritual essence. For the atheist, their hinge proposition may be "this plant doesn't possesses a spiritual essence". This gives them the knowledge that this plant doesn't possesses a spiritual essence.

The animalist sees a plant and knowing that all plants possess a spiritual essence knows that the plant they are looking at possesses a spiritual essence. The atheist sees the same plant and knowing that no things possess a spiritual essence knows that the plant that they are looking at doesn't possess a spiritual essence.

As you say, this is not how we understand knowledge, being something universally true.

The hinge proposition imposes itself on the world. We then observe this world. This enables us to confirm that the hinge proposition is true. The hinge proposition confirms its own truth self-referentially.

Another example. Let my hinge proposition be "the sun always rises in the east". In the event that I observe the sun rising in the east, this confirms my hinge proposition. In the event that I observe what I think is the sun rising in the west, then it cannot be the sun, thereby again confirming my hinge proposition.

A hinge proposition such as "here is one hand" gives knowledge that here is one hand. But this is self-referential knowledge, which is not how we generally understand knowledge as being universally true, as you say.

"This paper argues that ungrounded certainties enable knowledge, rather than undermining it, and that hinges and Gödel's unprovable statements serve a similar purpose."

If only all philosophy writing was as clearly written as this essay.

How do axioms and hinges relate to knowledge?

Let the axiom be "the sun rises in the east". This axiom can never be proved true. If one day the sun rose in the west, then the axiom is false. The axiom "the sun rises in the east" is not knowledge, as it can never be proved true.

Let the hinge be "the sun rises in the east". This hinge is a certainty. If one day what we think is the sun rises in the west, then what we see cannot be the sun. The hinge "the sun rises in the east" is knowledge regardless of what we observe.

Whereas hinges enable knowledge, axioms don't serve a similar purpose, as they can never be knowledge

So, taking for granted that it takes a few brief moments to say the word “instant”, then the moment “instant” is said, we have a duration long enough to find infinity. — Fire Ologist

Yes, it is hard to imagine that if time exists there would be any reason for it to end.

A moment of time, since it is “of time” must have some duration, and once you have a duration you see the infinite. — Fire Ologist

Suppose a stationary snooker ball on a snooker table is hit by a snooker cue at position zero and travels 1 metre in 2 seconds.

When the snooker ball passes through a location exactly 50cm from where it was hit, the time will be exactly 1 second.

As the ball can be exactly at 50cm, the time can be exactly 1 second.

There is no duration of time the moment, the instant, the ball is at 50cm.

Since the moment we first clocked the first moment,
We touched infinitely in all directions, before and forever after, all at that first instant of time. — Fire Ologist

Doesn't this lead to a logical contradiction? In an instant of time, by definition, there is no before or after. That is why it is an instant of time.

The mind not only causes subjective time but also causes the physical (this is discussed in my other thread here), so it is no surprise that there is synchrony between the passage of subjective time and changes in physical. — MoK

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change
P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience.

I agree with P1)

As regards P2), "experience is due to the existence of physical", I can understand that I may experience happiness because of the physical existence of my dog.

I can understand the existence of an experience is due to the change in state of physical, in that the existence of my experience of sorrow is due to the change in the physical state of my dog from living to dead.

But as regards P2) "the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience", I don't understand how the change in the physical state of my dog from living to dead is due to my experience of sorrow.

That is what I dispute (ie, I see a tree persisting through time). We can only see at the moment of the present, so that there is something there which persists through time, a tree in your example, is a conclusion drawn with the aid of memory.....................That's not true (ie, I can only be conscious of my present), because we have memory. So we are conscious of the past. Also, we anticipate the future, so we are conscious of the future too. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question is, whilst there is probably general agreement that we can perceive (see) a tree at one moment in time, can we perceive (see) a tree persisting through time, what Bergson calls "duration"?

Is what Kant calls the Transcendental Unity of Apperception a valid concept, where we can have a unity of consciousness about successive moments in time.

At this moment in time in the present I see a tree and a clock showing 2pm, and I have the memory of seeing the tree in the past when the clock showed 1pm.

I agree that at this moment in time I can be conscious of my memory of the tree in the past, but this is not to agree that at this moment in time I can be conscious of the tree in the past

It seems to me that we exist at one moment in time, including our mind and brain, as well as everything else in the world, including trees, tables and chairs.

That being said, I also feel that I am conscious of the persistence and duration of time. This raises the mysterious metaphysical problem of how a duration of time can exist at a moment in time. Kant thought it could, and he called it the Transcendental Unity of Apperception.

The Transcendental Unity of Apperception does not mean that at the moment in time in the present I can be conscious of the tree in the past. It still means that at the moment in time in the present I can be conscious of the memory of the tree in the past. But it does mean that at this moment in time I perceive that time persists and has a duration.

Suppose you are correct and we can only see a moment of the present. Let us say that in this present moment we see a tree and a clock showing 2pm and we have the memory of a tree and a clock showing 1pm.

How do we know that the tree we see at 2pm is the same tree we saw at 1pm?

It is a general problem. How do you know that the chair in your memory is the same chair you are now looking at. Only by inference, and if only by inference your inference could be wrong.

This is Hume's problem where we have to infer they are the same tree because of constant conjunction.

Kant's solution is we know that they are the same tree because we are conscious of the persistence of time, what Bergson calls the duration. Kant called it the Transcendental unity of Apperception.

You say that we can only see a moment in the present, which I agree with, but even so, even in this moment in the present, don't you feel the persistence of time?

What is perceived is change, not persistence..................................But it may be the case that this persistence is only within me, and projected onto the outside, creating the illusion of a thing outside me. — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends what is meant by perceive. It can mean to see something, such as "I perceive a tree in the distance". It can mean to know something, such as "I perceive that you are curious." Kant in B276 of the CPR talks about perceiving a thing outside me that is persistent, inferring by perceiving he means seeing rather than knowing.

It is not the case that I see a tree and a moment later I see the same tree, but rather I see a tree persisting through time.

The tree doesn't need to change in order to be persistent through time.

But I only exist at one moment in time, meaning that I can only be conscious of my present, my "now". It follows that it would therefore be impossible to project my consciousness of the persistence of objects onto the world outside me.

Therefore, the consciousness of my existence in time is possible only by the persistence through time of actual things outside me, thereby proving the existence of objects in space outside me.