If normative reason is "when in Rome do as the Romans do" and that is rational then being deemed a heretic for espousing science in a catholic country can't be. But science is more rational than religion.

Rationality can transcend normative reason. That is one of the ways 'red pill' has been interpreted, as one notorious online forum uses the term to describe non-normative or politically incorrect viewpoints on conventionally understood subjects. That's not the best example, but a better example would be Galileo red-pilling Catholics on science. That's a rational red-pill, but there is also a rational blue-pill of "when in Rome...". Irreducible to normative reason.

The contention is not about two or more equally rational actions, but when one is rational and the other is irrational as in the topical question.

If all rationality is reducible to normative reason then how is it possible that I have demonstrated opposing outcomes in differing forms of rationality?

That might be one of the many definitions of rational, but having a reason (cause) is not necessarily having reason (logic). Rational is irreducible to having a reason.

Depends what you mean by rational. If rational means a process of attaining true knowledge then the red pill would be rational. An analog would be antipsychotic medication, or the scientific method. If rational is the classical economic type where you act according to your best self interest then maybe the blue pill would be rational. If rational is following the rules of established order as in legal rational then the blue pill would be rational. There are more rationalisms than that.

As it stands the idea is just the expression of a notion. It really hasn't been challenged or developed in a rigorous way. If I had to one off a hypothesis it's that antischizophrenia accelerates or intensifies in relation to increasing normlessness or anomie in society. If one wanted to do something absurd and apply rational methodology to the antischizophrenic theory, that could be tested. In the USA there is an alt-right movement that has some schizo essences, so this theory would say that the "liberal" rational order of modern western liberalism is actually causing a dialectical conflict resulting in the manifestation of a social schizophrenia. It's a difficult topic, but something like: the politically correct, social democratic culture has created an epistemological crisis, where two conflicting sides of untruth are forming. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part is that one side is schizo is a function of what can be considered irony. There are several layers to that, but the simple formula is that the circumstance of western liberalism creates certain normative expectations, and the alt right acts with inferior epistem to overcome superior power with politically incorrect individual psychological dysfunction. (Opposite of politically correct, collective social function)

Yes that thinking is pretty much in line. Communism is basically on the schizo side for various reasons I dont have time to explore right now but it is a belief that doesnt align with healthy functioning of the corpus.

The idea is in the realm of schizo as it is conceptualized here, but Im not really doing anything schizo. Im at work right now, I go home, eat dinner and go to sleep, and repeat. I'm not really advocating schizo actions. I'm likely not going to confront rationalists etc on the forum with schizophrenia for example. I look at it as a possible large scale dialectical conflict or sociological perspective. Nobody has to take any action regarding it. It exists. Using the example of an american president: he has some schizo traits but he idealizes rational. His schizo traits move by mitosis to the schizo side and fuels antischizo and his rational idealism he expresses supports the modern ideal. The conflict is not mutually exclusive, one can act and think with both sides.

I'm not interested in cause. That is a modernist rational concern. The world is a certain way and I accept it. This post is not to talk about what has become the disease of schizophrenia, but the general opposition to everything that it is and represents. This includes how it is conceptualized as disease and how everything has become conceptualized in an increasingly focussed modern lense. It is about a way of thinking broadly about how schizophrenia is a polar opposite of everything that has been cultivated from Descartes on. It is about they type of person who maintains the standard of justified true belief, but it is also about everything that is opposed to and attempts to change a problematic natural world. It is a broader thesis than that even, but first encourages you to abandon the very focussed and polished lens that sees schizophrenia as just a disease and clinical diagnosis.

Yes I studied philosophy among other subjects in university. I have my own ideas about what would make university better. That you say that reminds me of the quote by George Bernard Shaw "the reasonable man adapts to the world, the unreasonable man wants the world to adapt to him, therefore progress..." Unsurprisingly I think the unreasonable man is on the schizo side of the conflict. One reason is that schizophrenia represents 'problem' and antischizophrenia represents 'solution'

I maybe made the topic a little bit too complex. In hindsight I should have just wrote about Descartes Demon which is the basis for the cogito and said that it was antischizophrenic. That would have possibly been a more productive discussion. But instead I made it a dialectic conflict and ended up talking about 1968 and Nazis. All the connections are so clear in my mind, but it would take a lot of explaining to do to get anyone else completely onboard.

But just about Descartes possibly being inspired by the demon that would come to be known as Schizophrenia to form the basis for the prevailing justified true belief zeitgeist of modernity, and the cogitio is a rather interesting topic. That it has created an antischizophrenic dialectical conflict is a little ambitious in hindsight.

I don't think anyone has any choice but to be involved in the 'fight'. Motivations are kind of hard to discern for any of the actors. In some ways I understand why someone wants to only have justified true beliefs, and that hints at motivation, but I am not really that kind of person. I don't really feel the need to have justified true beliefs, and Cartesian doubt seems extremist to me. I like having borderline delusional ideas such as this one about antischizophrenia, which if I think about it enough can really immerse me in another reality. Even though I don't think I have been able to express it thoroughly enough, I do have a complete enough idea of antischizophrenia to situate me in a schizophrenic reality where I would be antagonistic towards modern rationalists, and reactive to their antischizophrenic actions/ sanctionings.

That would be a convenient 'etiology', but it needn't be so convenient. To say that introversion and psychosis is not only opposed to, but caused by modernity would be a real dialectical materialist thesis-synthesis-antithesis argument. I don't think that though. There is a full range of diversification manifest in life as-we-know-it. I think Descartes demon is inspired by the demonic possession of what came to be known as Schizophrenia. In fact I think Descartes entire philosophy is an intended departure from Platonic irony, which is an incredibly difficult thing to discuss and 'irony' has been reduced to a linguistic phenomenon. However my contention is that irony in the broadest sense is on the schizo side of the argument. Introvert is just another schizo essence that modernity presents arguments against. For me it is a rather simple exercise. An antischizo is: rational, able, functional, doubtful/skeptical, authoritarian, possibly extrovert, social, communitarian etc. They can be all of those, some of those, and even a combination of those-and-schizo-essences such as: irrational, disabled, disfunctional, credulous, liberal, introvert, antisocial or asocial, individualistic etc. These oppositions need not be opposite, but merely opposing in essence.

The origins of this idea comes from a sort of preoccupation I had with being an "introvert", and the social stresses and traumas that are associated with that. I felt that Capitalism and Modernism sort of made a type of person that is detached from social reality, more about thinking than acting, prone to fatigue from the social nature of enterprise and having a tendency to cynical, apathetic and maladaptive thoughts about society and work determined the kind to be unfit. I had a suspicion that Jungian psychology had influenced the National Socialist regime of Germany in the 1930s on. In the absence of verifiable facts about this anti-individual agenda, beyond the known collectivism of fascism and ultra-nationalism, I sort of became aggravated by the Cartesian standard of epistemology of only believing what ego could absolutely not doubt. This aggravation, ultimately led me oppose Cartesian philosophy in my thinking and with post-modernists such as Foucault and Deleuze, an appreciation of irrationalism.

The National Socialist regime of Germany, can be considered sort of a synthesis of Orange Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but a modernization of those belief systems. Germans at that time adopted elements of Roman fascism, the salute and the social structure, and the ethos was a derivative of the protestant belief that there were signs (blonde, blue eyed, rational etc) that indicated they were blessed by God. There is also Weber's thesis of the importance of this protestantism to German history. But that is not really here nor there, but simply provides a segue back into Rene Descartes, who was another combination of Catholic and Orange. Being highly critical of the triad of Modernism, Roman Catholicism and Orange-ism, I came to look at this complex of embodying essences: in modernism, rationality; in Orange-ism, the predestined blessed and damned nature of opposing kinds; and in Roman Catholicism, fascist collectivism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. This is all simplification and generalization.

It didn't take much of a leap to connect my anti-introvert hypothesis to anti-schizophrenia. It became evident that schizo is an extreme that covers all the bases of the anti-introvert hypothesis, and as a further extreme is better for dialectical theorizing. Not only that, schizophrenia has a history of persecution/ treatment that is well documented. So appropriately, as a a rejection of Cartesian doubt, I persist in my belief in a complex that renders certain types of people unfit and that this orders and sorts people socially, determines how they are treated, the kinds of social interactions they have, whether they thrive, commit suicide, otherwise die, and succeed or fail. I call it antischizophrenia, but schizophrenia is one extreme in a bipolar conflict that everyone is either opposing or analogous to.

Your criticism makes analogy between my humble post to schizophrenic production, but far from a criticism this is appropriate for the nature of the idea.

comes of [sic] as a bit dumb/ignorant. — trogdor

I'm guilty as charged. However, having no clinical experience doesn't put a gag order on me from talking about something I have a sense of in the contemporary world.

That schizo is a recognized clinical condition is not a quality of the phenomenon. That is a modern development. Saying schizo is lack of rationality, even though I didn't say that exactly, is kind of a crude delineation for efficient communication. It is undeniable that psychosis is an irrational state to be in, but this is not exclusively about rationality, however you define it. It is about a complex of modern values that, yes, include rationality that are opposed to schizo essences. You can stand the modern ground that schizo is a clinical diagnosis, but that is the most threatening antischizo front as what is considered healthy (not schizo) is a major contemporary force of rationalization. This rationalization is an extension of Cartesian rationalization, but is not about philosophical rationality directly. Health rationalization is extensive and involves sets of rules, recommendations and scientific 'truths' that are compelling on thought and behavior. It is a simple thesis that none of these will rationalize schizo thoughts and behaviors, in fact it's the opposite. These rationalizations are not necessarily universally correct. Such things as overthinking, being alone, talking to yourself, encouraging paranoia, not sleeping, having grandiose ideas, childlike imagining into adulthood, daydreaming, neglecting body due to focus on mind, critical of medical authority/ knowledge, not following routines etc. are just some of things that are actively sanctioned. I don't advocate for these things, but I contend that the rationalized society they form is more hostile to schizo essences than a society without them.

As for your other comments about the quality of the post or my own expertise/ experience of schizo, both can be addressed by the admission of amateurishness. I am not a professional philosopher or academic. I am university educated, but I work in the skilled trades. Much of what I know about philosophy is from prior to 2010 and I am going off of increasingly diminishing memory. I don't have time or energy to give philosophy the attention I would like. As for schizophrenia, I obviously have no clinical experience with it, it is just my belief that the premodern world was more schizo than the modern world, which is increasingly antischizo.

The presented antischizophrenia is a paranoid speculation that aims to promote the shared delusion that there is a kind force of thought and action that organizes a will that persecutes schizos and forms a society in opposition to schizo essences. It is not to advocate for it. The motive for such a position is compassionate and with the ironic intention of connoting something against the rational expectation: "antischizophrenia is something good" as schizophrenia is something bad. This is a transvaluation that identifies schizophrenia as the embodiment of essences that reflect values that are under siege by encroaching modernity. However it is not a position that can be easily overtaken. It is a force of nature that recruits into its resistance from everyone on all sides. It is a pathology at one extreme and on the other it is a range of functional dispositions that are hard to oppress. It could be called anti-individualism, antisubjectivism, antinihilism etc. but antischizophrenia is a single entrenchment that covers all positions.

At the time of Descartes, schizophrenia was still undefined, yet to call it antimadness would be to deny the modern conceptualization that has defined the category. It is clearly this category of madness, which at the time of his writing was likely not zeroed in on, but known as a fascinating oddity likely associated with demonic possession and infrequent but likely panic inducing immoral acts. This demon in Descartes writing that presents the possibly false reality, has a rational remedy of doubt.

Below are some point form notes on antischizophrenia:

-schizo is subjective or 'intrasubjective' whereas modern rationality is intersubjective ex. a typical academic paper is a conglomeration of citations as if to make an intersubjctive appeal "this is what many people think"
- schizo defies predictability and control and features a breakdown in routines, these are characteristic of modern society
-schizo is prone to religious delusion, rationalization has separated from its religious influences
-schizo rebels against being watched, and watching in terms of surveillance and popular spectacle are part of modernity
-schizo is prone to solipsism which is extreme indirect realism whereas the modern view of reality is objective to the point of direct realism, even though ironically the neuroscientific view is indirect, the former is the standard schizos are held to in psychiatry
-schizo interprets reality as if they are not watching, and acts as if they are not thinking which is against modern standards of rational thought and behavior
-schizo is a materal condition (biological) that gives rise to antithetical ideas to status quo kind of like dialectical materialism
-schizo has a philosophical repertoire existential, phenomenological, irrational, nihilistic, cynical, pessimistic, subjective, transcendentalist, individualist, solipsism, indirect realism etc. These are argumentative to prevailing philosophies
-schizo is ironic as it is discordant with reality, expectation, codes, modernity, etc.
-schizo is predominantly introvert whereas extrovert is more in line with modern social agenda
-schizo is absurd this offends modern meaning as an objective truth of objects
-schizo presents possibility that human consciousness is fundamentally illusory which offends the modern view of objective truth
-schizo can create moral panics which can be used to increase communitarianism, a modern quasi-fascist agenda.

It's difficult to boil down because it represents a regime that sanctions all behavior and thought. Even in this thread the proposed AS is exercised through the kind of replies being made. Nobody has to care, that is opposed to the apathy of schizos, but if you are so inclined it is a possible reality that you can situate yourself in, become antagonistic and reactive to, as a dialectical conflict with modernity if you have maladaptive desires, a vendetta, or want to think something unconventional.

Reasonably concise is in the realm of oppositions of AS as it is diametrically opposed to the kind of extraneous, pressured speech that is characteristic. The political/ social schizophrenia is a complex of many essences that are literally, symbolically and analogously schizophrenic. It is not one thing that can be easily and curtly described. I have begun, in the OP, to describe the kind of essences involved. There are hundreds.

I will spend more time elaborating on this idea little by little, so for now one way of thinking about it is to think of a hyper-calvinist who hates schizos. Schizos are damned, object of his faith, totally depraved, lazy, abnormal, all the signs are there, opposed to the rationality of his religion, predestination manifest most clearly. To this hypercalvinist anything that that is even a little bit like schizo is schizo. This hypercalvinist works hard, methodically, with intent, and purpose and rationality and so builds values into social institutions that are meant to discriminate against anything schizo. These provisions are not directly antischizophrenic so that someone can form resistance against it but indirect and diffuse and each insular so this complex is irresistible.

Going to bed. Good night.

Not just doubt, my contention is that Descartes reinvents Platonism in a new spirit. Doubt is only one aspect.

Sorry if the post is not clear but I dont intend in any way to imply Descartes was schizo. I meant the premise is schizo and his idea challenges or opposes it.

Not surprising as it is concordant that your argument against the idea presented here is an expression of an antschizophrenic essence: incredulity/ doubt/ skepticism. I understand, you disagree with a critical belief in antischizophrenia.

Religion has some schizo essences yes. Rationalization is divorced from Calvinism according to Weber. What I attempted here is not to talk about the medical or scientific 'reality' of schizophrenia, but the opposition of its essences to the essences of the dominant ideas of rationalism.

I havent actually misrepresented I just drew a comparison and you inferred I was comparing two incongruent aspects. The similarity is that both are objects of doubt. My contention is that the cave allegory is ironic for the very reason that the world you observe is a confinement but the world is actually opposing. The demon is a schizo object that rationality challenges.

The cognitive dissonance aspect of irony is interesting. What immediately comes to mind is Swift's A Modest Proposal, where the reader at the time would possibly (for fun) be torn between actually eating babies or demonstrating for compassion. That is unlikely, but possibly in that instance the dissonance would be between making light of cruelty and enjoying it -or- being compelled morally by a pretty good work of satire. I can see cognitive dissonance happening when there is a sign saying no smoking and you have used its surface to strike a match for your cigarette in the absence of any other suitable surface. The rule not to smoke and your conflicting idea to smoke are dissonant, but the irony of the no smoking sign allowing you to smoke is another ironic level.

So without refering to the particular Socratic irony that Hegel takes issue with as a subjective threat against objectivity: Socrates is the wisest, yet he knows nothing; another element opposed to objectivity is revealed. That is as objectivity is deindividuating, irony is manifestly individual detachment from collectivity as an analog of dramatic irony. This raises the question if the expectation in irony has to be rational? It is possibly a rule that the collective expectation is, but if pomo is schizo and pomo is ironic then schizo may also be ironic. Schizo expectations of impending disaster, paranoia, and delusional are irrational and lead to ironic action against social codes.

In the previous block of text there is a proof that the expectation in irony is rational. If the expectation is rational then the consequence is irrational. This is one thing that puts rationality and irony at odds, even though it takes reason to identify and to sometimes act and think ironically. Irony goes against the rational ordering of the world. Irony is opposed to what can be calculated, predicted and controlled. Furthermore, the formula for irony ex. Situation>expectation=opposite can be seen in contrast to a logical syllogism. The latter is for coming to a rational conclusion whereas the former is to reach an irrational one. This is not always against reason as it can be used as an argument against irrationality. So the statement that modernity is anti-irony is only so far as irony's ends are irrational.

The analogical irony embodied in the conflictual relation of individual vs society is more complex. Using the example of socrates feigning ignorance he creates dramatic irony in that an audience 'knows' what his opponent does not. In the individual vs society, there is a difference between what the libertarian thinks and what the communitarians think. The shared knowkedge of the communitarians vs the induced ignorance of the individual creates one example of irony. The tie in to the template of irony is that the individual does the opposite of what the audience expects. Using the example of the audience that sees a murderer hide in the closet, yet he unsuspecting victim opens the door, the irony is possibly due to the expectation is based on the rational expectation of action based on knowledge. This is important as there are other possible expectations such as what will inevitably happen. It is still dramatic irony if the audience 'knew it' that the victim would open the closet. This fact that can be deduced from this form of irony verifies that the expectation is rational.

I dont know if Platonic forms are anything, but my understanding of forms is that if something embodies it such as a comic character or Socrates the form must exist. I allude to the form of irony but my relating of irony to Platonic dualism is a kind of subtextual, synthetic understanding of the split between body and soul and the physical world and forms. In my view there are simply two distinct separate but related essences that are in opposition in irony. One is usually the idea you get from a set of circumstances and the other is some kind of opposing reality or actuality.

Free speech has never guaranteed what you write will be published. You always could publish whatever you like yourself, but pamphleteering on the street and shouting loudly from a corner will only reach so many people. I see no reason why social media has to publish everything and anything. I strongly believe someone can say anything if they say it the right way. Anything can get past the censors if one is adept enough.

In the discursive way I think about irony my thoughts meander in various directions. One dimension is how there are the original examples of irony: the comic character, Socrates etc., and from these extract the metaphysical essence of irony. From there I consider analogical ironic forms that share the formulaic essence of irony, but are deviations from the original example. So if irony is a nonanalogy in a dualistic relation, then the analogy of disparate phenomena to the original ironic forms possesses an analogical irony in that what are not in a dualistic relation shares an ironic co-relation. 'This' is ironically like 'that'.

Maybe. Care to elaborate?

The late Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory supposedly originated from analysis of the "hotel room key". The key has a cumbersome object attached and this as well of a network of actants results, with reliable effect, of patrons returning their hotel room key to the front desk. Note that due to this network of actants, not returning the key is ironic.

Is this allusion to predestination? Weber argued predestination was lost in the process of rationalization, however I think irony and determinism are directly at odds. It is a complex argument to make, I'll have to think about it a little before I attempt. If to be free people should not be trapped by paradox does not necessarily imply they should not be an Eiron, it is a sufficient argument against rationalization. This is because rationalization creates the condition, the set up, whereas irony is merely discordance with it.

Reason is not ironic, but to identify irony takes reason. However, there is a paradox: to reason something is ironic then proceed to do it, is irrational.

This is not so paradoxical for ironic actions, but for discursive actions it is quite paradoxical as the reasoning can be quite advanced for the irrationality that results.

Now that medical rationality has become more pervasive something like smoking cigarettes, which was at one time expected, has become a sort of ironic action given that the circumstances such as monetary cost and the importance of health set certain expectations — introbert

I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on this point. I use this as a simple to understand example of my perception of irony in action, which can be extrapolated easily to other things. In the example you have two opposing expectations, notice that they are opposing but not ironic. In the first expectation - to smoke - it is not really ironic to oppose. The expectation is weak. In the second expectation - not to smoke- there is scientific medical evidence that it hurts and kills you, there are signs everywhere that say not to smoke, rationalized people will tell you not to smoke around them, the price of cigarettes are artificially inflated so the financial cost is high, yet you smoke. The expectation is strong. So that can be one factor in irony, the degree that the expectation is justified. What does this have to do with rationalization? Rationalization is compelling on thought and behavior as its method of justification appeals to reason. To oppose it, as in irony, is irrational.

Sounds like Deleuze, concepts are undefined, they do not exist in isolation and have to be understood contextually. I dont fully understand the depth of Deleuzian concepts actually, I have only an approximate understanding of what he says.