Logic is the automatic byproduct of existence itself. — tom111

The Law of Identity is one of the three traditional laws of thought. By the Law of Identity, a being is identical to itself.

I tend to agree that our thoughts can never be independent of the world, as we are an intrinsic part of the world.

However, the issue of time may complicate matters.

The Law of Identity states that Being A is Being A, where Being A is identical to Being A.

But the Law of Identity is always about one moment in time, and at this moment in time, Being A does not change from being Being A.

But what is "one moment in time"? "One moment in time" is defined as a moment in time when there is no change.

Note: a Being may or may not change with time, but the Law of Identity is not referring to identity through time but rather is referring to identity at one particular moment in time.

Therefore, the Law of Identity is a tautology that is dependent upon a definition. IE, the Law of Identity states that at one moment in time Being A does not change into Being B, where a moment in time is defined as a moment where a Being does not change. As a tautology dependent upon a definition, it cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world.

In fact, there could be a Law of Identity that at one moment in time being A is not being A, where one moment in time is defined as a moment in time when there is change.

In practice, we don't define "one moment of time" as a moment in time when there is change, but there is no logical reason why we couldn't. The Law of Identity is about logic, not about the choices we make.

The Law of Identity, that at one moment in time a being is identical to itself is dependent upon the definition of "one moment in time". It is therefore a tautology dependent upon a definition and therefore cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world.

I am not sure philosophical discussions of time and space which precede our modern physics and which choose to ignore the seeming implications are relevant or reliable. — prothero

I agree that philosophy should not ignore modern physics, but this is not necessarily the case with quantum mechanics, where there is still much disagreement.

After just a quick look on the internet:

Sabine Hossenfelder. Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?

Sabine Hossenfelder. Gamechange: Theories Of Everything Can’t Exist, Physicists Show.

Sabine Hossenfelder. Why This Nobel Prize Winner Thinks Quantum Mechanics is Nonsense

Sean Carroll. Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they donʼt seem to want to understand it.

As you said yourself, the mathematics of General Relativity breaks down at smaller scales.

Philosophy should take into account modern physics, but not those parts of modern physics that remain contentious, such as quantum mechanics, where there is even disagreement amongst the physicists themselves.
===============================================================================

There is clearly process and change in the universe....................All our measures of time depend on some other process, the earth moving around the sun...........................So it would appear there is no absolute time, and time is an abstraction from change. — prothero

Putting what you say into premises and conclusion:

Premise 1 - there is change in the universe
Premise 2 - the measurement of time depends on change
Conclusion - time is change

Premise 2 is a definition, where time is defined as change.
Putting this definition into premise 1, there is time in the universe

The conclusion that time is change is more a premise than it is a conclusion.
===============================================================================

The most productive path for the TOE (theory of everything) or Universal Field Theory would seem to be some form of Quantum Gravity (loop, string, etc.)........................This would imply that neither time nor space are continuous but both would have some kind of discrete quantum formulation....................No dimensionless points and no instants of zero duration. — prothero

It may be that in the future there is a TOE, and even if there is, it may be that this implies that neither space not time are continuous but discrete.

However, so far, this is not the case, so does not tell us at the moment that there are no dimensionless points and no instants of zero duration.

What would those real temporal parameters consist of? If you think about it, they are all reducible to relative positions. So your starting point, t1, is completely arbitrary. You choose a specific position, and begin. The time itself has nothing within it to indicate to you what position is the starting position. — Metaphysician Undercover

I must be missing what you are saying.

As time is relative, space is relative.

As there is no absolute point in space, there is no absolute point in time.

Therefore, as any starting point in time is arbitrary, then any starting position in space must also be arbitrary.

As I explain, that duration is arbitrary...The length of the duration is the product of choice in an absolute sense — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree when you say "The supposed object, the particle, is a real empirically observable object"

This particle can only exist at one position at one time.

I also agree when you say " therefore it's position cannot be arbitrarily chosen, there are real spatial parameters which limit the truth, and restrict the designation of location". I agree that when observed, as this particle can only exist at one position, its position has not been arbitrarily chosen.

However, I don't understand why one cannot equally say "therefore it's time cannot be arbitrarily chosen, there are real temporal parameters which limit the truth, and restrict the designation of time". When observed, as this particle can only exist at one time, its time has not been arbitrarily chosen.

I still don't see the difference you are trying to explain, in that distance is not arbitrary yet duration is arbitrary.

The particle is observed at a position and at a time. Neither are arbitrarily chosen. The position is the position I observe it to be at, and the time is the time I observe it to be at. As I cannot arbitrarily change the position I observe the particle to be at, I cannot arbitrarily change the time I observe the particle to be at.

Nevertheless, things in space have definable position, even if moving, and that provides the basis for spatial measurement. On the other hand, the points in time which serve as the boundaries for measurement are totally arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

An object, or a particle, in space and time can only be at one position at one time (ignoring any debate in quantum mechanics). In other words, a particle in space and time at one moment in time can only be in one position.

I am using the word "arbitrary" as used in your post.

At one moment in time, if a particle is at position A in space then it cannot be at position B in space.

As position A is not position B, there is a spatial distance between A and B. This spatial distance is real, and therefore not arbitrary.

A particle cannot be at position A and B at the same time

Let the particle be at position A at time C and be at position B at time D

There is a temporal duration between C and D. This temporal duration is also real, and therefore also not arbitrary.

That a particle cannot be at two different positions at the same time means that neither spatial distance nor temporal duration are arbitrary.

The spatial measurement is not arbitrary..................The temporal measurement is completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is interesting that since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

Even distance cannot escape from time.

The essay does argue for the importance of essays within philosophy. However, it does have a narrow scope as to what that may mean, based on guidance for academic philosophy essays. This leaves little scope for the most creative possibilities and such guidelines are likely to be a factor in the decline of philosophy essays in the first place. — Jack Cummins

Yes, the philosophical essay does have a narrower scope than philosophical writing. Philosophical writing can include the novel, the poetic, the aphoristic, the journal, the epistle, the dialogue, the letter as well as the essay

But this philosophy writing challenge June 2025 specifically asks for a philosophical essay.

"4) Must fall under the broad category of a philosophical essay."

If the organisers ask for a philosophical essay, perhaps that is what they should be given.

Am I wrong?

Perhaps next year people may vote for something else.
===============================================================================

I would have to disagree with this though for a very particular reason:

Opinion and belief are the catalyst to philosophical enquiry, but without clear justification based on logical reason and solid evidence, philosophy will degenerate into multiple factions forever at odds with each other.

I think there is certainly danger in getting sidetracked, but I am of the opinion that many of the greatest achievements of humanity are accidental. By going off-piste we can stumble upon fertile ground in which to plant new ideas. Sometimes nothing grows, and sometimes something does. — I like sushi

I agree that some of the most important philosophical writing is not in the form of a philosophical essay, such as George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

I agree that many of humanity's greatest achievements are accidental, and far from structured.

I may feel that Animal Farm is philosophically important, whereas someone else may feel that it is not. It then comes down to my feeling over their feeling, and if a battle of feelings, the book may not reach the wider audience that it deserves.

If someone asks me why I feel that Animal Farm is an important piece of philosophical writing, it is surely inadequate to just say "because I feel it is". This is unpersuasive and the questioner my leave the conversation, lose interest in the book, never read it and miss out on a seminal piece of literature.

It would be better for me to try to justify my reasons why "Animal Farm" is an important piece of philosophy by making a case, making a solid argument, defending my claim, showing flaws in any counter-argument, providing evidence and all within a structured introduction, body and conclusion. In other words, using the format of a philosophical essay.

If I make a strong logical case using reasoned argument, they may begin to understand why I feel that the book is philosophically important, buy a copy, read it and come to their own feeling that it a great philosophical work.

A roomful of people just with feelings is not going to move society forwards.

The spatial boundaries are determined by empirical principles, while the temporal boundaries are stipulated arbitrarily. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we can only know the object the edge of the object is at x = 1.2 metres empirically.

But how can we know that this happens when t = 75 seconds, if not empirically?

Yes, x = 1.2 metres is arbitrary, but also t = 75 seconds is arbitrary.

And the point? — Metaphysician Undercover

There are boundaries in time as well as space. Including the boundary between the present and past.

I don't think these two are similar at all. When we look at things in space, we see all sorts of boundaries, the edges to objects, etc., but we do not find any such boundaries in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine an object moving through space.

Suppose at t = 75 seconds the edge of the object is at x = 1.2 metres. Suppose at t = 80 seconds the edge of the object is at x = 1.6 metres.

As the edge x = 1.2 metres is a boundary between less than 1.2 m and more than 1.2 m, t = 75 seconds is a boundary between less that 75 seconds and more than 75 seconds.

These are simply units of measurements, not ultimate bounds in a some philosophical sense. If you were to ride on that photon as it traverses a Planck length, time would vanish completely for you......................I have wondered why certain physical facts about time have not entered into these discussions. — jgill

I have taken the following from an article by Zhen Liang - IS SPACE DISCRETE? AN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF PLANCK LENGTH AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS

For time to vanish sounds philosophical.

Philosophically, in the past, space has been considered infinitely divisible.

Space has always been considered infinitely divisible and thus continuous throughout the western philosophical traditions beginning with the ancient Greeks......................However, this notion of space has also been questioned and challenged since the very beginning. Zeno of Elea, a disciple of the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides who denies the reality of motion, was the first and foremost (at least that we know of) to disturb our notion of space with his famous paradoxes.

Einstein's theory of relativity has changed our conception of space, time and motion, but does not refer to whether space is continuous or not.

Therefore, Einstein’s theory of relativity, although forever changed our conception of space, time, and motion, still leaves the continuity of space untouched.

As the metaphysical reality of the Planck length is problematic, whether space is infinitely divisible or not, the same seems to apply also to time, whether time is infinitely divisible or not.

Therefore, if time itself is actually continuous, without moments, yet our measurements of time are dependent on the use of such moments, then our measurements are fundamentally flawed, because they employ a concept which is not representative of time in reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the same problem with space as there may be with time.

The Planck length is the smallest unit of length, approximately equal to 1.616 x 10^-35 meters.

In a sense, our measurements of both space and time may be fundamentally flawed, in that, as there is no position in space, there may be no moment in time.

However, this is not a problem in practice, as the minimum length and duration are so small. The standard metre bar introduced by the French more than 200 years ago has done pretty well at introducing a practical and usable system of linear measurement.

Our measurements may be approximate, but for most situations, approximate measurement are good enough
===============================================================================

If activity requires passing time, and there is no passing time in a moment, you would not be able to determine whether the tree is static or active without watching it for a duration. — Metaphysician Undercover

Even if time is just moments in time, we still have our memories.

Suppose time is just moments in time and has no duration. When I look at a tree in the present, I see the tree at only one moment in time, and I can only see a static tree.

However, at that moment in time in the present when looking at the tree, I also have a memory of the tree in the past. By comparing the state of the tree in the present to my memory of the tree in the past, I know that the state of the tree has changed, meaning that the tree has moved.

Even if time is just moments in time, because of my memories, I can still distinguish between a static tree and a moving tree.
===============================================================================

This makes no sense to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

One's opinion as to whether or not there are fixed moments in time in a large part depends on whether one believes objects such as trees exist independently of being observed (Direct Realism) or objects such as trees only exist in the mind. (Indirect Realism)

In part, when talking about a tree being static or moving, for the Direct Realist this tree (and the space and time it exists within) exists in a world independent of any observer and for the Indirect Realist this tree (and the space and time it exists within) only exists in the mind.

Direct Realism and Indirect Realism are obviously mainstream philosophical positions.

Which bit makes no sense.

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?