Would it be so terrible if you wish to avoid confrontation to generate less one-sided responses. I have made my post one-sided which any good argument does, but I think something that could improve psychiatry is if it wasn't polarized against the thing it treats. There should be some acceptance in the natural occurrence of mental disorder that this is part of the nature of the world. This would not be committing a naturalistic fallacy, and if it was accepting a bit of irrationality would go a long way.

I don't know you well enough to say something that might be understandable to you, but I think you have identified the central idea to this situation from my block of text to indicate that you have made some sense of it. The artifact in this situation, the flute, was held by a symbolically colonized person and the artifact was owned by a colonizer and owner of slaves. In the case of artifacts held by a colonizer of a colonized African nation, critics on 'the left' will use the return of them as progress towards decolonization. In this case critics on 'the right' will use Lizzo's possession of the artifact as they have to proclaim something degenerative or decadent about the state of the world.

Definitely agree with the direction of your inquiry. In both cases the killer has an irrational inner voice that leads to the crime.

The argument simplified is the body's medicine for its soul (laughter or philosophy) is against psychiatry (medicine for the soul). The medicine for the soul (psychiatry) attaches its body and its soul to the mad. The body and the soul of the mad becomes sick and tries to heal through philosophy and laughter. Thus, psychaitry is like a parasite. Why are the mad not parasites on psychiatry? Parasites do not make their own host. Sure, psychiatry could easily make healthy people sick, but practically no.

That is a nice irony! Is that a point made in the book, or your own?

The question I'm asking "who made who" is just to reinforce which body is host and which is parasite. A host can make parasites, but a parasite can't make a host. I appreciate your comment, but as irony is a religious level belief to me, I have to always root for the underdog.

There is something to be said about the interplay of symbols in cultural life. In an important event like a state funeral, all the symbols are on point and anything out of place will be heaped with criticism. There is a cogency of symbols in most situations, even ones that are not formal, which define the culture of the people and the events. When something from one culture is appropriated by another culture, there is usually a controversy of some message being conveyed, at least sub-textually. This in some respects is like an artifact from a higher regarded society being used or appropriated by a lower regarded society. Any of the entitlements that lower society has to it, or perceptions of diminishing its value will be criticized in various ways. On the other hand, the possession of artifacts held by colonial powers of colonized peoples are only now being looked at in a negative light. On the surface without evaluation or analysis this is just a person playing a flute, but on another cognitive level it is an interplay of symbols like a political cartoon. This is the nature of events where the symbols are not entirely uniform.

Although it is difficult to completely disprove determinism, deterministic possibilities like predestination are extremely unlikely. It is a common deterministic belief that everything that exists unfolds in a way that was set in motion by the big bang billions of years ago. If all the natural world consisted of was planets orbiting stars and other junk flying around then that would be a very likely possibility. However, it is hard to understand how something like the coordinated economic activities of large and complex projects that require everything to large scale planning to minute and precise technical movements have been set in motions deterministically by the Big Bang. Although, I can see from some conceptions of determinism that if there are underlying laws of nature, that things could unfold in a rationalistic way in a non-predestined way, given that no foreknowledge existed of the future.

Predestination is one form of determinism and really relates to religious discussions of the topic of free will, whereas most philosophical discussions of free will/ determinism really don't discuss predestination. I definitely on principle can't agree with predestination as a possibility for determinism, but can't rule out determinism completely even though I do believe in free will.

In this scenario where you follow a path that is predetermined without being able to see it happens regularly. It is rather interesting to me the way footpaths and trails form, with people walking across hypotenuses or taking other shortcuts etc in well trafficked areas. When snow falls or leaves fall and the paths become obscure people will still follow the paths in the same manner as they were originally beaten when they were being established.

I can think of symbolically related scenarios. The whole scientific promethius of so called advanced societies are breaking a hole through the dome of each paradigm the newest technology shifts. The societies that live in hell scarcely are able to shatter their dome at all.

This idea immediately immersed me in imagination thinking of a possible short story about a future colony on mars that is enclosed in an opaque dome. The colony is a symbol of scientific, empirical curiosity but after a few generations despite the scientific advancements the colonists have lost the plot with all the history of their settlement irretrievable in corrupted computer files. The story ends when the insatiable scientific curiosity of the colonists leads them to penetrate the dome to see what is beyond.

Well I think it is an ironic reading of Deleuze when you take away the opposite of what is intended. Definitely the expectation is that someone who uncritically reads Deleuze will be against positive freedoms in favor of a society of enhanced negative freedoms. But the critical person who reads the criticism will not do as someone compelled by the argument is expected, but there is a paradoxical unironic irony: the critical reader of the criticism will uncritically accept the subject of the criticism. So much for being critical.

Both are just as likely to break free. Despite the conditions inside, another factor such as curiosity will enter the equation. The question should not be about likelihood which is certain in both cases but a simple bet on which group will meet the challenge first. The hell dome group is the natural underdog in the contest, but they are possibly more motivated.

Hegel has his own way of defining/ conceptualizing objectivity. I'm not sure Hegel's definition of objectivity is sound, but he was before structuralist thought, so the idea of an object being sort of self defining rather than being defined in relation to other things could be held in contrast. My understanding of Hegel's objectivity is that he loathed a kind of subjective philosophy of concepts that give meaning to eachother, so that the end result is not based in reality but in a mental construct. I guess to Hegel if a concept had objectivity it wouldn't rely on an interrelated web of concepts. I figure the way Hegel divides up the object into a form and content kind of acknowledges there has to be some relational nature of concepts, but he makes it with itself.

Certainly if you look at some of the premises of both evolution and humanism you will find contradictory ones as you have. But I dont think the two terms in themselves are contradictory. In fact I think evolution is such a rational process and demands rational adaptation of humans to environment that it does not conflict with humanism.

Hypothetically the further one moves towards individual in religious belief the closer it gets to madness. In the case of the Pope or King/Queen of England, Grand Mufti, Ayatollah or what-have-you there is an individual element to their declarations but they are far from existentialist, it is a social circumstance of profound alienation where a person truly begins existential contemplations. Although the degree that a person experiences them is limited to their powers of reflection and will usually be self destructive than affirming and lead often to seek out religious teachings over the nothingness of the self.

I should clarify my final statement that death in this case will most likely occur as an anomie. The eiron will become distanced from society, rejected by family and friends, have trouble attaining money to survive and likely in their state of normlessness and irrationality engage in risky behavior. There are other possible deaths but this society cools out people in a certain way.

Suggestion reminds me of ironic process theory that to try to suppress thoughts makes them more likely to occur. If you're trying not to think its best to get busy with something else.

I hope youre saying that ironically because most sarcasm is used in a condescending way.

Or to put it another way: Oh I agree completely sarcasm is never used in a malicious way to condescend, it's unprecedented!

Irony is an important code. It can be used to hide the intended meaning especially in times of limited speech. But I find anything can be read ironically even when the author has no ironic intention.

"Look at the last statement I wrote. You can read "Irony is not an important code at all. It is used as an obvious way of conveying intended meaning when you are saying something you shouldn't. But not everything can be read ironically especially when the author has no ironic attention."

The ironic interpretation of any text immediately subverts the writers intentions as reading it as sarcasm

actually I think what people see as ironic is one of the important things about it. Irony exists as kind of an argument and to acknowledge it accepts an internal inconsistency in its object.

So you see the irony in the state collecting sin taxes. The state is supposed to uphold virtues on society but they profit off of sin. I see it as only a little ironic compared to the example I provided.

I have mixed feelings about it. Regarding the previous point I made, I think objective facts are good for science, but society should be governed by subjectivism. So, irony plays a role in diminishing objective controls over society. This is a serious topic and includes everything from extreme legal rationality when any object of the law is violated it demands zero tolerance to the stated topic of sexuality and gender. I am all for irony in challenging these expectations. Regarding prisons and sports, perhaps irony should implode aspects of these institutions as well.

In my opinion transgenderism falls under irony. It defies our objective understanding of the world, and is a phenomenon of indirect realism. That the world is how it appears is not the case for transgenderism. A man is actually a woman, vice versa. Although there might be an objective fact such as genes that underly transgenderism, it manifests subjectively that revolutionizes expectations regarding sex. To impose a completely objective understanding of sex and gender would be to establish expectations regarding a wide range of behaviors. To act with a subjective difference to objectivity that defies these expectations is ironic and manifests different ironic events: dramatic, as in when a person knows a person is transgendered when another doesn't; situational, as in when a dude looks like a lady; cosmic, as in when someone is born with all the biological features of a man or a woman, but they ironically become the opposite; Socratic, as is when someone who is not biologically a man dresses as a man, and proves to you that they are a man; etc...

Trying to remember history class from highschool, but I think the machines the original Luddites destroyed (led by Ned Ludd) were taking away their livelihood. That is one motive, to protect livelihood. Another could be to protect environment. To return to a more primitive way of life. There are other more imaginative reasons.

My previous response was in reference to your mention of the male stereotype of masculinity and what it means to be a man. Individuality and masculinity, versus collectivity and lgtbq. Of course, the person you reference is following his/her own individual instincts, but would not have a critical mass of similar people to become the dominant culture so has to depend on collectivity and popular movement.

Regarding the second paragraph you wrote transphobia likely comes from individual sexual preference. Individuality I believe, even though it is the root of transexuals identity, is against them and lgtbq because majority individual sexual preference is heterosexual, and individuality is not to play nice with others, can be hurtful and insensitive to others. This is because individual communications are not meant to join people together, but to keep separate. Insulting and being mean and abrasive is very individualistic, whereas collectivism involves understanding and forming bonds with others.

Regarding third paragraph, it is a tough question. I think each person expresses instinct. Although, the way instinct is defined and talked about, denies it plays a role in human behavior. But I believe instinct, or something like it is the basis of sexual behavior, but ultimately the culture it produces is going to defend those instincts. I think whether someone is more individualistic or more collective is also instinctual, like being introvert of extrovert or conservative or liberal, and that influences how people will be swayed by the cultures produced by competing instincts.

I got in trouble for using a bad word in one of my posts. I am not against lgtbq but I used a derogatory word in my post. It is a fascinating word to me because of its symbolism of collectivism versus individualism. I can't find much explanation for how or why the term is used to describe gays but I speculate that it has something to do with American individualism and conservatism and about the appropriate kinds of relationships between men and how they should relate. I think individualism is in decline and the idea of the rugged individualist or the cowboy or the liberal has given way to a kind of social ethos that is collective. For example an individual person like myself today that tends not to have any friends could be on the verge of suicide, but maybe in a more individualist society the socially outgoing person would be. I think the way people used to be about gender and sexuality was more about how the individual person felt about it, but now there is kind of a collective consensus forming that is being pushed by popular movements which is represented by this offensive word I used. Even if gender and sexuality was individually determined, with the majority of men expressing their heterosexual instincts and being adverse to close and intimate relations with each other, there would still be social constructions as individuality doesn't take place in a vacuum. I am an individualist person who was at an early age homophobic, but I have been swayed by popular opinion to accept lgtbq, but at the same time I am wary of possible threats to individuality.

There are questions. How can we know anything about death when life is a mystery. I contemplate consciousness and reason the consciousness I experience belongs to my body. When my body dies, my consciousness will end. The consciousness simply belongs to this one body. This is something that becomes confused by the ego, and I think things like I am a possibility of existence like anything else that exists, my consciousness is possible. But that is the ego talking. If something happens once there is a better chance at it happening again, than something hypothesized that has never happened to happen once. Like the woman of my dreams that has never materialized. In short, I let my ego convince me that I am an occurrence of the natural world, consciousness and all, and it will fade in and out of existence improbably throughout the eons. Each time living as if for the first time and dying as if for eternity.

In this post I talked about deterministic activities like following a routine or plan as being necessary proof of free will.

Interesting take on defying programming. Definitely on topic as it is about the ironic nature of freedom being its opposite. Freedom is as you say having and doing what we like but is not free because these are deterministic factors that affect what we do. Im not sure the negation is free. I havent solved the problem.

Well as I said determinism and free will are confounded with daily activities that are deterministic or free. Doing the routine which is deterministic in a sense is not an argument against free will, agreed, but doing something deterministic is ironically an argument FOR free will. And being too free such as having a lack of control or discipline is against free will.

It's deterministic because the player does it predictably. If a person was unable to do things in a predictable way because they had no control over their actions the conclusion would have to be they lack free will. For example myself doing the same basketball routine I would fumble the ball everytime. If everyone in the world was like me in all ways as I am in basketball there would be a strong argument that humans lack free will and a force beyond us prevents us from doing what we will. Perhaps the spectators have more confidence in the routine doer because he demonstrates free will. Since humans are for the most part competent at the things they do it is hard to argue that for instance everything takes place in an intelligent mind or simulation and that complex actions and routines are done by this and not human free will. That would be a really intelligent mind to compute all that simultaneous competence. However that is not necessary for complex actions in some views of determinism such as Clifford's where chains of stimuli result in necessary conclusions where there is only illusion of choice.

All you're saying is it is wrong to bring an innocent person into the world if they are going to be harmed at all. They will definitely be harmed at least a little bit in the world, for as you have argued in another thread death is harm. Therefore it is wrong to bring an innocent person into the world. I'm saying that is not an new argument. The question of anti-natalism "is it right to bring a child into this world" implies that scenario.

That is the same thing in different words

I dont think it's a new argument to not bring an innocent person into a cruel world. It's actually a very basic consideration that most people who have children immediately dismiss.

There is no likelihood for 'you' to be born. You are simply 1:total humans. Your subjectivity is not probabilistic, it is like any other subjectivity except that you have a strong sense of ego.

In my opinion truth or effects do not effect how philosophy is evaluated. If so Kant wouldn't be regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His philosophy contributed to Nazism and certain things about his metaphysics and space and time being intuitive are simply nonsense. However, I think the reason Kant is considered one of the greatest philosophers is basically reason itself. He demonstrated mastery of philosophical concepts and presented reasoned arguments that take a great deal of skill and aptitude to confront. Ultimately if philosophy is 'love of wisdom' then philosophy is best evaluated by how much someone's wisdom is loved.

Individual.

Selfishness is an individualistic trait, objectivity is against the individual perspective (hence Rands new revolutionary Objectivism), subjectivism is the individual perspective, free will is a question has a lot to do with individual agency

You're stipulating that death is harmful and equivocating the instant of death with postmortem. Your stated intent to determine through discussion which is more harmful the antemortem or the postmortem is impeded by your insistence at mooting any effort to mitigate the harmfulness of the instant of death and beyond. So what can anyone say to appease these discursive limitations when they believe a life of suffering is worse than an instant of death?

Obviously a big topic of epistemology, but my short note on the topic related to your allusion to postmodern is that pomo social construction which is an individual transcendent or dialectical relation to society possibly creates an unlimited potential for ideas. If you just look at sort of surprising concepts behind short videos posted to social media there is unlimited nuance to the ideas for these clips. This is pomo because each individual goes against expectation of the original template but has an opposing idea which is not diametrically opposed but sufficient to revolutionize each concept. The clips just serve as an example of a rapid pomo phenomenon, but this type of thing will occur in other domains like college term papers or in the potentially infinite multiplicity of billions of people reacting to the boundless multitude of nuanced social situations that occur each moment without record.

The problem is that you use the term postmordem. I have provided arguments about possible postmordem harm, but the conventional understanding is there is no postmordem harm to a dead person. Death is the most harm a person can endure, but that harm is all, as you say, antemordem.

There are postmortem harms obviously, but not to the individual who dies. The death of QE2 which just happened might actually do irreparable harm to the British Monarchy, ushering in republics across the Commonwealth. Fortunately though for the Queen there is no postmortem harm to her individually except maybe to her identity or memory. Obviously the body decays which harms the soundness of the body, and has to be handled etc which is harmful to the privacy of the person. But once dead it is questionable if there is any harm.