Thanks, you seem fully cognizant, but alluding and not making direct conflictual statements.

I think a big issue with the musical era in history was people did not have a perfectly clear idea. They wanted to enjoy the music that was designed to influence them.

thats classical canon aswell strong is alazon and weak is eiron. Alazon makes a bunch of deceptive truth claims that people believe that give him power, the eiron is underdog thay must transend using a body that stresses from mental exertion.

There was music that I suspect were designs against naive: hit the road jack, get a job, you get the idea. Rationalizations in popular music.

Enjoyed entirety. I think another option is completely accept moral teaching but misinterpret. Never steal: constantly complain of living in colony.

From my interpretation of what you wrote the argument from reason assumes natural physics are deterministic without full knowledge of workings. Cliffords argument for determinism that action is based on sequential stimuli, could also cause near unlimited possibilities in a physical structure like the brain X 'ideas'. Obviously ideas to a determinist are direct observstions not flights of fancy, so anyone not proceeding in a reasonable sequence is predestined by design to fail and then?

I know it's hard for you not to observe.

Antagonistic functions mean in theory someone can take an extreme left wing position to accelerate activity in the right wing. Butler is being completely genuine though, the futurist project of replicating the change of attitudes in psychiatry in the general population towards trans folk is neccessary, but not the same. In psychiatry it was codified and systematic. In the general population it will be like midwifing the birth of a new wisdom, but the wisdom has already been completely decided, it just up to everyone to learn what that is.

Logician=/=doctor?

Rational can mean so many different things. Rational meant you could do logic, but really people don't need to do formal logic all the time so that rational definition is naive if taken as absolute, but also because it is classical. Rational idealism is a modernist construction and is connected to psychiatry. There is an emerging rationalism based on diagnostic signs of mental illness. Naive is becoming a complex of behaviors that will lead to being deemed pathologically irrational. Some people will not obey the new rationalizations that will be adopted by disciplinarians in families and institutions, and constant corrections and control will cause instabilities feeding the leviathan.

* deontology

My argument is that the rationality is ideal meaning it is not real and the real is irrational meaning it is based on inadequate ideals. Rational idealism is opposed to naive states ancient/prmitive, unskilled, idealistic ( transcendant) etc.

If we were talking about ethical egoism for example it is opposed to egoistic states, implies they are unethical but acknowleges the self does exist, but erodes individual.

That is an example if how that when talking about rational idealism we contrast with the opposite and in the other with ontology and psychology

Ok hold on im knitting.

None of those words have full surface value. You need to know something about them.

Appeal to authority is classically taken as perhaps the definitive fallacy. Classic in contemporary modern is positivist diagnostic criteria.

Logic doesn't necessarily come from someone who theorized idea mechanics. BCE there was an unjust civilization and logic is the deconstruction of evil stupidities that serve as warnings for possible dystopic regimes.

The functionary makes compositon fallacy that the whole of doctors /medicine have the knowledge of only some.

*likely in that case has function of creating doubt

Yes criticizing modernism. Yes functionalism is cornerstone of modern sociology, arouse during rationalization of german society at the beginning of the industrial age. Merton later continued the agenda in the postwar period. That likely had an antagonistic function as well as a alienating function.

The argument you have made about a physician being a specialization is not relevant in that my argument implies the doctor is assumed to have knowledge.

"determinism cornerstone modern?"

The short answer is determinism is based on expectations, or what is determined is expected. Prior to modern naive action resulted in indeterminancy.

It's a starting point that has to be challenged. The appeal to authority is made in the case of medical doctors because the science is assumed to be sound, but people really only have a few active memories at any one time besides their fixed belief and direct perception, and none of those seem to acknowledge a physician is not a chemical engineer.. I notice that the drugs can treat but also expose the sick to risks to 'cure' the disease in the population over time. That a word such as side-effect can completely negate any suspicion to intention or importance makes me wonder.

Real is something that is not just an idea.

I'm a materialist who thinks ideals should reflect the kind of symbol that they have created in the world.

Teach me a few things. I am ESL student.

"metaphysical approaches don't prevent interpretation of reality"

I know just about making caveat "purest ideal of mortal", someone will see upperhand rather than understand and will argue they are immortal because they have pure ideas, if you can guess what those are (+), and then use that influence to win over the most astute for any of their ideas.

"eugenics has a bad rap due to a certain fascist dictator's ideals

There are certain constructions that set the postwar understanding of social-political phenonenon back on a gradual trajectory to rebuilding the failure of germanic idealism. Blaming individual for collective failures, conceptualuzing country borders as political reality when political reality is a pointilism of different colors that are borderless, for example yellow-red dots everywhere from germany to GB to canada and usa and south africa, denying words like 'reification' of ideology which a german would have easily understood: a car, or a person with racial logic ie an aryan. Denying the word allowed the project to continue. There is so much that was constructed and demolished that one has to suspect the laying of new cornerstones.

I'm just talking about eugenics. It's the slipperiest slope.

I rather live with someone who doesn't mind a little mess, than someone who is strict about keeping the room perfectly clean.

That was a little curt, but there is more to look at about eugenics than entropy. Eugenics is a pastoralism. It is a tendency of people with certain kinds of knowledge to try to control and improve the flock. The way it is controlled and the way it is improved is indeterminant in that there is no single way that it can be done. One pastoralist might want a flock of selfish individuals, another of other interested. Desiring machines of different kinds. A machine is a part as well as whole. If these are the only two desires to know self or to know others, both create a body with a kind of health and sickness. The eugenecist will try to make more eugenicist people who desire only fitness, functional parts of a schematic environment that determines what is fit. The disgenecist acknowledges the nature of decay, disorganization and conflict in the cosmos. It is a rational idealism thinking positive about a progressive plan against negativity. The negativity is a real aspect of the cosmos that will not change despite any scientific plans to the contrary. It is a complex area.

Not really. I am more of a general philosophy thinker. I think the ways things are defined are important and are designs against the opposing analog. So Kantian transcedental idealism is something like psycholigy structures perception of universe, which is opposed to the analog of the psychlogized transcendental idealist who is a social deviant. It formulates a psychologism and a subjective constructivism over phenomenon while superimposing another understanding of the social phenomenon which is to be treated by psychiatry as abnormal structures of perception. Phenomenology is part of the same line of development, but on the practical side is a science of understanding an individual's subjective experience through a very well developed discursive style.

Modern philosophy with its psychologized idealism is not my cup of tea. I lean towards Platonism. I wrote a now deleted post on symbology, which sums up my perspective. I think ideas are an immaterial, but fundamental quality of the cosmos. They do not exist, but they are the necessary conclusion of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not ideas, but the the qualities of stuff. Stuff isn't made by ideas, and stuff doesn't make ideas, ideas are the essence of anything real. The modern psychologizing of idealism is an absurd focus on the brain and head as a predominant symbol, in a much more complex web of symbols that construct perception. To give so much primacy to the mind ignores the symbols codes and ways of thought that it learns to think about. An idea is independant of the brain but it does not exist. In the metaphor I presented about the mirage in the hourglass is the mirage outside your brain or inside your brain or is the mirage a web of symbols and your head is just one of them that you are decieved into giving primacy?

I'm a disgenicist. I acknowledge that entropy will sooner or later decay and breakdown even a population of good stock. A eugenicist is really an idealist who is just antagonized by imperfection, just as certain other types are antagonized by irrationality. Disgenics does not encourage the propogation of disease and disability, but just acknowledges in a laissez faire casualness that entropy is the nature of things, and that it has a useful function of provoking those who are triggered by degeneracy. A disgenecist is opposed to this type. If I envision two societies, a eugenic one that allows no disability and a disgenic one that allows it, I would imagine that both societies would have a large number of healthy people, but the disgenic realist society would be less likely to believe they are the masters and become domineering etc. in war/ conflict.

Luddite destroys/ resists technology that threatens livlihood, and way of life/ craft? I don't think a Luddite has much chance against sanctioned, organized efforts. There are intersections and nuances that make Luddism seem like Workerism and other positions. Call it slave mentality where one takes on an identity adverse to some ruling doctrine, but becomes an object that is valuable to it. Like how a criminal who is against police or unjust law/ policy becomes an object that reinforces its power. Workerist argues against the manager and the owner etc. but in doing so reduces self to something inherently valuable to them. I am not a luddite or a workerist I am just a person who knows it costs very little to live, and see that there is no organized sanctioned effort to let people live basic, happy, minimalist existences. Work and technology doesn't need to be abolished but every nuance of slavery does.

There is really no abstract way to compare angsts, feelings or affective states. Each person's experience of them is different. In my experience sadness is not a problem for me, but boredom is. I used to read the Marxist philosopher Guy de Bord and he used the tag line 'not bored'. I understood this to be about having internal resources and not relying on external stimuli to entertain you, which obviously gives the Spectacle power. But I do get bored of my internal resources in much the same way as I have things such as running, cycling, being in relationships, socializing, and even attaining some goals. Getting bored has been a catalyst for self-destruction such as using drugs and alcohol, risky sex, and quiting work and education/ training. Sadness has not been anywhere near as impactful.

I can talk about other topics.

Yes, freedom is doing whatever you want. Thinking is not important.

You are standing your ground on solipsism as a delusion, I am standing my ground on solipsism as certainty in one's own mind and doubt of others ( especially nonsolipsists) which is interpreted by such as delusion.


Rational is relativistic. Plato is no longer conventionally rational. Cartesian arguments "god made a corporeal world" as reason for not doubting it is no longer rational, but cartesianism still prevails. Rationality is reducible to making a little sense, that's it.

The simple point here is the solipsist is confined by the constructed reality of the nonsolipsists.

Doubt in Platonism is against shadow masters that are confining you, and you have to rediscover the true forms. Doubt in Cartesianism is that there might be a demon that is deluding you. The nature of that demon is either rational (schizophrenia) or irrational: a fairy. The cartesian turn was against irrational belief and the result is modern history. Cartesianism is against irrational nature of individual ( our solipsistic side) and platonism is for the individual to challenge the deceptions of society.

I don't look at solipsism as a completely ideal state. I'm an idealistic solipsism realist, while realists are solipsism idealists: they make the conventional idea of solipsism seem unreal. An argument against it.

I didn't understand your question about battles. It's not how they are viewed but many battles have likely been fought over solipsism. Any fight for individual freedom is going to involve independent thought, which involves only having certainty of one's own mind and being critical of the validity, soundness or even existence of anyone else. (Are these monarchists even real?)

As for the questions about guerilla vs conventional: the ideal guerilla is a freedom fighter, a partisan, a resistance member. The ideal conventional soldier unquestioningly follows orders from the command chain of a regime. The ideal guerilla is not an ideal conventional soldier and vice versa. Neither are inherently good or evil. The ideal guerilla is the solipsist and the ideal conventional soldier is the confederate.

If solipsism is the litmus test: is platonic realism or cartesianism more limiting of individual freedom?

" in a battle solipsism is not helpful" I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, but if you reduce solipsist to unconventional and confederate or whatever to conventional, unconventional warfare such as guerilla tactics has beaten conventional warfare of highly trained, disciplined and equipped soldiers. The guerilla is an idealist and the conventional soldier is a subordinate.

Anything is difficult to discuss without a point of reference. I use modern project as designing against solipsism as the basis of my post, but I could discuss it as descartes has structured it as being a basis for rational doubt. That is a more specific modern design, so I look at critical thought such as postmodernism as being part of a struggle to redesign solipsism. Such things as turning one against social construction, disciplinary institutions (panopticon) and fascism etc and even an openness to schizophrenia as gently nudging the reader towards solipsism. Panopticism gets a person to watch themselves as if they are always being watched. This has a different effect on the introspective ( a dimension of solipsist) than the other oriented. To me this much abused modern method is just one part of a complex that causes disturbances in people who tend to be solipsistic. I can just as easily look at paranoia and delusion as bodily defenses of a person who is turned against or resistant to the social, as just mental disease. I see solipsistic movement in the right-wing against imposed collective social measures, and think that what doctors call mental health issues is an emergent natural force. It could be my solipsism talking but the invisible construction of ideas imposed on a mass of living growing material bodies will force it to change in a way that is not necessarily in line with social controls. Solipsism, in this era, has been designed against and possibly will be the force of the bodily will. Maybe solipsism had its day in the platonic world and descartes was just one of a changing body against its tyranny. Possibly the living body cycles between solipsistic eras and intersubjective ones.

It is not a conventionally well understood area. It is a matter of philosophical enquiry to answer. All I can present is not a final answer, but a problem.