I don't know.... but imagine how difficult must be for children growing up in a world where their cereals boxes have the image of a woman looking like a boy and dressing like a man (I am not inventing it, check Cheerio Ellen Boxes).

Then you have all these history books where cultures and kingdoms that used different models, gods, values, etc., clash with each other and one side dominates or exterminates the other side.... as Arabs did with Persians/Sasanindes and Byzantines, Sparta with Athens, and so on.

It is hard to say that only population, geography and military skills had the final word on all these conflicts. It is hard to argue also that history will not repeat itself and the "weak" will not be exterminated or subjugated to the "stronger".

People may say that we need to be free, no responsibilities, no duties, no education, and so on... but that's just a game with words or simple carelessness. For as long as there will be human beings and civilizations there will be some kind of dominance, labor division, responsibilities, values, models and so on. If we forget those in this or that country that does not mean all the countries will get rid of the models which make them stronger in one or another way.

I just put them together since they look diverse and both are losing to different degrees their social cohesion. Brazil is governed by a white minority. US is more inclusive and fair, but with the racial make up turning whites into a minority (30 years from now, according to US Census Bureau) I won't be surprised if we look like Brazil also... with the wealth and power accumulated at the hands of a white minority.

Nothing bad with quotas. But more work is needed with inclusion, egalitarianism and primary education (role models). US is probably failing in these directions and it makes me wonder sometimes if the reason of these failures are multiculturalism and turbo-capitalism.

I can't claim, however, that I know the answers. I just see some problems here.

I do believe that a beautiful world is a world filled with many small nations.

A world where 8 billions have only five languages and two or three religions would be the ugliest of all. I wish I never see such a world in my lifetime.

Just a quota, like we can't afford more than 20% of population to belong to other languages, nationalities and religions... and we have a policy that these people learn lets say Danish within five years and become fully integrated Danes within twenty years. If that does not happen no more green cards here :)

We do that because we know that there are only lets say five millions Danes in the world and we were told that we are a brave hard working nation that lived in this land the last 4000 years and we love to keep it going on like that.

I can't tell you if this is practical in a post-modern world hit by a climate crisis, but I don't see anything wrong if 5 million Danes want to protect their tradition and culture in a world where you have 1.4 billion Chinese, 330 millions Americans, 200 millions Indonesians, etc.

Should we call Danes supremacists just because some of them think it very special to be a Dane?

They will need their own models I guess in order to survive in a world where big nations and religions are dominating the small ones.

I will be frank with you. When I first came to this country 15 years ago, I landed in NYC and I was impressed with all that diversity... it felt like being home from the first day in the USA, since you have all the communities of the world in NYC and you can choose to belong wherever you want. That was a beautiful feeling, very exceptional.

But when I see USA now, I see a society that is investing in its divisions (or maybe my vistas are biased). It is hard to see how all these peoples and cultures can agree on other things but money and power. It seems to me that money and power keep things going on in this country today (it has not been like this always, the Puritans brought here their culture that did not survive or it survived only partially... this country once open a time had a demos with its own ethics, then it turned into something else, something much bigger).

Now, imagine a whole world becoming like the USA.... all communities, cultures and religions infused in one place and everyone fighting for himself and showing his power and wealth in order to make himself heard or even dominate others. (Is there any other way to succeed in a country with so many diversities in mores, beliefs, values and aesthetics? It is not this the way politics work in the USA... show your power in order to succeed?)

Would that kind of world look diverse to you anymore or would it look everywhere like Brazil or some poorly managed US city where communities isolate and protect themselves from "invaders"?

It is okay in diverse countries like USA or Brazil all diversities to be accepted, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing if UK, Ireland, Denmark, Kenya, Iceland, Egypt, Namibia, Israel or whichever country believes to inherit a nation, a history and a culture, to decide one day that diversity be kept under control through democratic means (without punishing anyone, but through having immigration quota and making sure that everyone who enters and lives in that country accept some standards and models or at least be educated towards those standards and models).

I don't see anything bad with this last option.

If extreme leftists try to make many countries in the world look like USA and Brazil then they will be killing diversity, will not protect it at all.

Ethics and culture can do a better job with societies than power and money. It is true that in the USA everyone, on the left or on the right, does speak about ethics and culture, but in reality we are not seeing that.... we are just seeing poor people protesting in the streets and vandalizing cities and rich people lobbying for their causes. With so many differences and disparities it has become a little difficult to speak about culture, models, ethics and similar things.

If other countries can invent other ways in order to remain democratic but at the same time to reduce diversities and disparities, I don't see anything wrong with that.... especially if these things are achieved through a common culture, social services and good elementary education.

Okay, I see.

My previous answer had to do with your question on what I meant with rewriting history.

Now let me give you one more example:

My (fictional) country is located in an island where 50% of the territory belongs to us, and the 50% to the other nation. We have been in 400 years war with our neighboring nation (for religions, ignorance and all kinds of stupidity) and we are sure that the neighboring country does not give up attacking us. We are sure also that in the middle of the ocean none will come to our help.

Due to our religious differences and beliefs, in my country we tend to be more liberal in mores than in the neighboring nation. But that has a cost for us. We are being reduced in numbers. The neighbors have become 700k, we have become 600k. If we keep up with these numbers we are sure that 40 years from now our neighbors will be 900k, and we 400k.

We are afraid that these numbers mean capitulation for us and most probably another way of life. Are we not justified in wanting to promote models like having a few kids, being more courageous, handling guns, and so on?

So, in this extreme example I don't think it very good to erase all models whereas at the same time we might be praising our way of life. If we stop having models, we better renounce our way of life and accept whatever our neighbors will decide for us.

I hope this puts some perspective in the need for role models.

Let say that the British are very proud of having conquered once upon a time the 1/7th of the world and Russians are proud for having conquered 1/11th of the world and so on.

They praise their generals, but now you have someone who claims that General X167, killed his cattle and burned his village. So, the latter claims that the statue of General X167 in Manchester should be removed for the atrocities he committed to his village and instead of the statue of General X167, we put in that place the statue of Preacher Y259, who lived in the destroyed village and raised 2000 cattle and gave food to 30 people.

Here we have a dilemma now: take like your model the courage, intelligence and skills of General X167 or take like your model the good heart of Preacher Y259?

This what we are talking about today and this kind of dilemmas are more visible in liberal societies, rather than in other societies where religions and tyrannies do not bother to ask you what model you prefer (they give it to you).

To answer your last question: I cannot be sure what is right and wrong, I just wonder how a liberal/electoral minded society can tell what is good and bad (ugly and acceptable), when everything it wonders about is representing and non offending ALL voters (in ALL possible ways).

Thank you for the clarification.

You helped a lot with mentioning left extremism... that gave me some kind of perspective lol

Replying to your three questions:

1) If marriage was assumed to aim at procreation I would be against the marriage of LGBT. But I don't see marriage in the US to symbolize procreation, so I cannot take a stand at all to your question.

2) Because I despised Hillary Clinton that has nothing to do with the way I view women. I'd gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren.

3) Black people should be treated like all other Americans, and be helped to get equal education, equal rights and equal jobs with everyone else.

What I don't see like a good thing are attacks on the history, the mores and the aesthetics of people (majorities), just because we have to stick to "correct/representative politics".

This is why from the beginning I was talking about models, nothing else.

You better look at the past of the UK and USA. How did they become so strong?

People had some values and ethics that differed (and made them exceptional) them from many others.

You don't have that nowadays. Now you have just politics led by money and power. Ethics is the last thing that matters in American democracy today (you can't even speak about ethics without someone feeling "offended").

What do you have now? Poor people who protest/vandalize and the rich who keep lobbying.

Since the majority do not see any interest in both options, they are the last to be heard in this country.

But does it need to be that way? What would happen if liberal societies were able to infuse their mores and education to everyone?

Democrats say that this is what exactly they are doing (they are teaching everyone to become a saint), but we have some doubts here. If they are teaching us what are models we are shown?

I don't see any models in this political culture. Nevertheless, other members are making a few things more clear to me.

Having a "demos" (a like-minded community) is very important also. But when you hear all the time about differences and identities that need to be respected, you stop believing that you are living in a demos.

You start believing that you are living in a regime where everyone is distant and different from you and the only way to make yourself heard is to exercise some kind of power on others (through voting, lobbying, protesting, vandalizing, and so on).

Did you follow Hillary's Clinton electoral campaign?

All her arguments where about accepting everything (immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, Hispanics, and so on).

I am an immigrant, I have Muslim (and Orthodox) ancestors, I have LGBT friends, I think Hispanics are the coolest people in America, but I don't know what a hell of electoral campaign was that?

Like taken out from some George Soros' article where the impression readers get is that in democracy what matters the most is that every minority is represented enough, so as none to be excluded, none to be offended.

I wonder if these kind of politics can ever produce models like: good father, good wife, beautiful woman, well dressed/haired people, and so on.

Because now in the government jobs we are even told to accept all kinds of of hair-styles and dresses from our colleagues (but male short pants). We are in the constant pressure to accept anything and to not judge things as ugly or as beautiful.... just because some person who belongs to a sect or tribe may complain that he/she is not accepted.

This is what am I talking about. Does this kind of mentality lead to models? Can cultures and societies last without models?

Good, all of you have added some clarity here, like: 1) not to confuse liberalism with extreme left (they are related, but do not need to be identical) and 2) we are not looking for perfection, but for the last worst option.

This second element has become very practical in my political choices. Though I dislike Democrats and their obsession with "open society" and "identity politics" (viz. Sorosianism), there are so many other things where Democrats and liberals in general are more acceptable to me.

In final analysis, I don't think that the children of the poor parents who cannot afford paying their Instagram accounts will be less happy than they are today.

Since even the the experts of the field, psychologists included, are talking about regulating the social media nowadays, I couldn't think a better way of doing it, but taxing people.

If anyone else thinks that governments have a better solution on these matters, I'd like to hear it.

Till now I just see people going nuts and none doing enough to save them.

I'd like to add here, also, that I might have found this idea of lack of models in Plato's Republic.

I his work, Plato seems to suggest that democracy debases human beings, since its main function is not to promote the division of roles/labor or to promote sound thinking, but to promote desires and caprices.

Though Plato was referring to another "kind of democracy" it is really striking that today's electoral democracies do somehow rely on desires more than on sound reasoning. It is hard to govern people today, if you are not informed on daily basis about their demands. So, if you happen to govern a diverse district, the first thing you ask yourself is not how you will get your tasks done perfectly, but how you will represent all your voters' wishes in the way you perform your tasks. If you don't do this, you may loose votes in the next election.

Hence, again (like 25 centuries ago) emotions seem to play one of the major functions in democracy.

It is hard to see how a liberal society can promote models nowadays when the first thing every politician should worry about is the representation of his voters wishes, his fear that none should be excluded so that no vote is lost in the next ballot.

@I like sushi seems to suggest that I confuse liberalism with extreme leftism.

That may be an answer. You have all these Soros-minded people who have enough power to sponsor Hillary Clinton and 100 film-makers who will remind you 24 a day that democracy and politics should preoccupy firstly with ALL KINDS of minorities and individuals and then with working families and traditional majorities.

So, it may be due to the power of the extreme left that many people (including Orban, Trump and Putin) have drawn a lot of support in their war on liberal institutions, though as I like sushi implies not everything that is called liberal it solely means that word (excluding other political definitions).

You have a point here too, i.e. there are things advertised as expressions of true freedom when in reality they are just expressions of extreme leftist mentality.

It seems that I got many things wrong.

But, I believe you cannot claim that you are going to save the world from global warming with small governments.

One other thing I have come to believe is that apart from taxing people, the biggest role a state
should have is educating them. I fail to see how can states justify their existence if they do not educate people or set themselves to a state of mind where role models are seen as a risk of losing voters.

This is what we are talking about nowadays: removing statues and erasing texts so that people (voters) will not get offended.

And what are going to be our models after we erase those we used to have the last 300 years? Can the advocates of vandalism & history rewriting be sure in that they will offer better and long-lasting models to the rest of us?

How can we be educated if there are no models or we are given constantly mixed models, models that contradict each other?

I believe in universal healthcare, better elementary education, global warming, big government, infrastructure spending, taxing the rich, social services, some kind of egalitarianism, and so on.

I guess these things make me liberal. Being an
immigrant is one more reason to not like conservatives and far right.

But the way Democrats do things is another story. They seem to declare themselves the robin-hoods who will save all minorities and if you happen to belong to a minority but at the same time to despise Democrats then something must be wrong to your brain (according to a democrat).

Not judging people and not trying to better educate them (so that they will not be offended) is another strange element of US liberalism (as I understand it) that I have come to dislike.

I may be biased against US democrats and US liberal columnists, but that may be the case because I am partially ignorant on what conservatives write and think in this country.

Truth be told, though I live in the US I read UK newspapers mostly (especially the Guardian). US liberals are more interested in not offending their voters, than resolving real issues.

If you think I am biased let me tell you that no western country spends more money for electoral campaigns than US.

If I remember well, in 2016 the political parties in UK spent 50 millions for their campaigns, whereas in the USA each major party spent around 3 billions. So, a country five times bigger than UK, spends 20 times more money for electoral campaigns. So, US politics and US media are firstly interested in money making and voting, then in emancipating people.

I don't know how exactly it works, but if Democrats gather 3 billions for their campaigns, some money must go to columnists and media outlets as well... though they pretend to be free thinkers.

Anyway, I do consider myself a liberal. You will not find a single post in this forum where I may oppose spending in healthcare, education, infrastructure, police reform and climate crisis. I liked Bernie Sanders a lot. Though I did not bother to vote Hillary Clinton, I did vote Biden and I am very happy with that.

But all that liberal propaganda (in communication, movies, literature, and so on) to not judge anyone sounds like Christian preaching to me... and I doubt that these people who preach us are really sincere.

I can't help judging my brother. How may avoid judging all other human beings?

Democrats pretend to be robin-hoods or saints, but truth be told I prefer them from Republicans and all those crazy evangelists.

I wish we could discuss on social media too... because they are really debasing human beings --not only politics and society, but people's mental health.

I proposed on my blog that there's only one sound solution to social media and internet: taxation and making stupidity expensive.

Government interventions in order to reduce hatred and bigotry will either fail or make people and far right more angry (so when their turn to govern comes, they may attack liberal media... as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey are doing already).

Tax parents and they will not see any benefits when their kids spend five hours a day on Instagram and TickTock. Right now all the stupidity the internet has to provide is distributed freely... and a mentally disturbed generation is what you get.

Anyway, let's start another discussion on that matter. It really interests me :)

@Tom Storm

By the way, I am not saying that liberal societies cannot produce models. What I am saying is that liberal societies as I see those today in North America and Europe seem to tend to erase models.

So, though I guess that there may be an intrinsic problem with liberalism, I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that I see a trend here.

It is another question whether or not that trend can be avoided by liberalism.

Then I must be wrong.

What I had mostly in my mind are family roles and responsibilities. Even the numbers show it that western societies are aging and will not be sustained for long without immigration (from other cultures where family roles are better discerned and individuality is not turned into a cult).

Anyway, the notion you are looking for can be found (probably) on the many rights of the individual. A liberal culture makes the individual, you and me, the last court of appeal, the subject of all rights and constitutions... so it is hard to see how such a culture may divide roles and models.

When all this mentality is mixed with everyday politics, things may get worse... because liberal politics tend to call emancipation everything that makes everyone to feel free and it even calls discrimination the dominance of one model over another.

So, it would sound a little strange to support the model of a couple with four kids in my town, when other 200 individuals say that they are being offended by the fact that I propose like a model a worked to the bone woman, who gave birth four or more times.

These other 200 individuals propose some other models as well: a single mother, a lifelong student, foster parents, a person who refuses to give birth, a gay couple, and so on.

If I refuse to promote their models, I'll probably loose 200 votes or see people protesting in front of my office.

What is the solution then? No models at all or mixing everything together.

I hope this helps you to understand how liberalism tends to erase models.

I fear something worse than that: a new culture or religion that brings new models and declares crap and ignorance everything that existed before its arrival.

Though I love my freedom and the freedom of everyone around me, I fail to see how long societies can go on without role models.

I guess that was the reason why Plato turned against democracy in his Republic... though his own solution was really terrible. But he must have been right (history vindicated him within 50 years) that democracies are not made to last.

You are correct about monarchy, its function is not to provide a model. But it is okay for my neighbor to declare that she conceived her first child through using a sperm donation bank and that she is not sure on who is the father of her second child. I can't imagine this happening in a royal family (without raising all kinds of opposition). In this case, I presume that my neighbor is exposing her free/liberal mores, whereas a queen or a king consort is serving as a model of old school wife (in order for the inheritance and privileges of her children to be protected).

With regard to aesthetics, there has been the practice in the past (and it is still the practice in South Europe and South America) that white, young, skinny, big-eyed and blondie-haired women to be chosen as tv-presenters.

In North Europe and USA it is hard for a tv-boss to stick on that practice without being labeled a racist. So, to be politically correct in a liberal & diverse society, the tv-owner should better chose women of different height, weight, muscles and color without asking all of us what we take for a beautiful presenter and an "ugly" one.

It seems to me that the tv boss is intruding in the way I used to consider a woman beautiful and he is even changing the way that my son will approach "beauty", since my son had not the chance to get his eyes used to those skinny, big-eyed, blondie women I used to see on tv for more than 30 years.

I can see that one does not need to be strict in defining beauty, especially in a country like the US. But I do see also that "correct politics" can have an impact on aesthetics and the way we teach our children to see "beauty".

This was funny.

I live in the US and telling from political communication and aesthetics as well (especially movies and literature), the first thing a liberal should do is: to not judge.

So, it is hard to find in a US-like society models like good mother, good father, good family, beautiful woman, sexy woman and so on.

I may be wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws.

I repeat that I may be wrong, but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate).

Is this so or have I misunderstood US liberals?

I am a very complicated person... it may be the fault of my bad DNA, but I had bad life experiences as well.

First of all, I was not born hard of hearing.. if I was born hard of hearing I would have become a dentist right now (dentists don't need to hear :)

I went to college for international relations in Greece, because I could speak four languages when I was 18, but in my twenties I appeared with severe hearing loss and tinnitus in both ears, and from that time I was not sure anymore what I wanted to do and what I was able to do. So, it took almost five years to accept that I had become a different person and in those five hard years I somehow found peace in all kinds of books.

In the US I have a good job, but there are times I just want to pack and go back to my country, Albania. Since in Albania things are more difficult than here and I am the book nerd, somehow it passed my mind that with a PHD from the US (and my savings) I can do many good things in my country and feel very useful. In practice it might turn to be the opposite :)



I agree with what you said. I applied this year for an adjunct position somewhere, just to try how it feels without making my life much more complicated, and also I am thinking to apply for PHD and discuss how much time I can save before I enroll in any classes (I somehow feel that I can be accepted this year, if I pay from my pocket plus the tuition benefits from my job). If the adjunct position comes first, maybe I postpone the PHD and see for a year whether I like teaching in the field. Whatever happens, I definitely do not want to spend more than three years for the PHD. I have to make sure that is possible before I make any decision.

Anyway, thanks to all of you for your replies.

Hello everyone,

I didn't want to reopen a discussion that is already going on and decided to continue inquiring the commenters of this topic.

Here is my case:

I am 37, I work full time for the government and my job includes tuition benefits (40%). I have a lot of free time to go for PHD in Philosophy, but I love creative writing. With my creative writing I get a lot of pleasure and some fame, but no money :) I am hard of hearing, also, and I don't know whether I will be able to teach (though I always loved teaching).

The only thing I know is that a PHD from the USA has a great reputation in my small country and in Europe. Is that a good reason to go for PHD? I have already two MA from the US, and I hope to complete all PHD requirements within three years... but I can't say that I am a hundred percent sure on that :)

Any advice is very welcome. Thank you!

I have always considered Shakespeare a great artist, although I disagree with all those who depict him as a psychologist, philosopher, prophet, and so on (I find De La Barca and Machiavelli, who wrote plays in the 16th century... much more prophetic/philosophical than Shakespeare). In a few words, I disagree with Valentius' focusing a taste. I can say that the Taming of the Shrew artistically speaking is a great play, although I dislike its message.

I do consider, also, Orwell and Dostoevsky great artists, although the academicians focus mostly on the political and philosophical implications of the works of these authors (leaving aside artistic elements, as the tension that both authors create in their novels).

To conclude, what troubles me mostly is that in plays and poetry many people can define the artistic elements. But in novels it seems to me that it is hard to make academicians or the specialists of the field to agree on anything. I see sometimes critics of literature praising two novels for the very opposite reasons... and that confuses me about the artistic credentials of prose writing.

Shouldn't there be some kind of agreement on what consists art in the case of fiction writing?

I hope to receive more answers on this question, cause I really need to reflect...

I think I can say who is a storyteller and who is an amateur, although the message of the amateur is more appealing to me than the message of the storyteller. In a few words, what I was trying to say is not only about taste, is about the condition of literature and screenwriting nowadays. We have come to a day where everything in literature and screenwriting is accepted if it is politically correct and it is authorial. We have all these academicians who will find something to praise in every possible "novel" and this praise seems to turn into a kind of artistic credentialing for the novel and what I am trying to say is that this happens in literature and movies more than in other arts. I see a kind of abuse toward our aesthetic feeling here, a kind of abuse that it is more hard to see in music, painting, poetry, and so on. Whereas in music, poetry and painting almost everyone has an opinion on what is agreeable and pleasant, in prose the opinion that matters mostly is what is the message and structure of the written piece --not its form, pleasantness, cohesion, tension and so on. What I am asking therefore is why should I call the writer an artist in a time where the evaluation of novels and short stories is based on criteria which differ significantly from the usual criteria people use in the evaluation of (other) artifacts?

The problems of the Muslim world are foremost political problems. There are big differences between Muslims. In Sub-Saharian Africa, Islam is different than the Islam of Maghreb, Mazrec, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey and so on.

Terrorism and Radicalism are phenomena of the last two centuries. Islam has not been like this always.

Henceforth, you cannot leave aside all the political, geographical, historical and social issues when you describe Islam and Muslims.

I do not doubt that the ideology and values of Islam differ from Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, but I do not know how we can build a discussion on Muslim values, when so many other things are going on on the Muslim world.

Facts:

The most dangerous region in the world (if you exclude war zones), according to CIA Facts Book, is Central America (where 98% of the people believe in Jesus Christ).

Pollution and destruction of the global natural resources have been caused mostly by the West.

Ok, thank you for your reply.

By the way, could you share with us some cliffnotes about the role poetry holds in Heidegger's philosophy?

I finished reading Heidegger's "Poetry, Language, and Thought", and I am amazed with the many things Heidegger seems to derive from poets. To tell you the truth, I am distrustful to the many conclusions one can draw from poets and poetry (although Heidegger seems a great reader and interpreter of poems). But before, I have a say on whether it is right or wrong to derive so many conclusions from poetry, I need more info about the scope of poetry in Heidegger's philosophy.

Does Heidegger think that from poetry you can explain the whole universe, or does he hold the other view according to which poetry shows the role of humans in this universe?

Thank you again for your time!

I read your replies. Thank you.

I lost my interest in logic already lol (all my interest was confined to the exam)

I already threw away all my notes on logic. But if I remember well, the only way to come with up with a contradiction in that sentence was through negating assumption Fb (for FY) three times, and bring a contradiction with the vE discharge... it took me more than 29 lines to do that.

Professor said he would work on it and answer later, but he never answered to my question...

I am happy to let you know that I passed the exam, and the questions turned to be much more easier than the ones we have been discussing here. Thank you so much for your time and patience! From this discussion I became aware that I should show more attention to the way I used/discharged assumptions, and that helped a lot in order to succeed in the exam. Enjoy your summer!

Thank you for your wishes, but the last exercise is not heading anywhere. It is 7:30 PM here, and I started working on the last exercise from 5 PM, without any success (unless I bring two disjunctions and 29 lines of proving). I will ask my professor also, cause either I am not good at quantifier shifts or there is some sequent intro I forget.

I am talking about: "1) Ex(Fx) Premise2) -(Ex)(Ey)(x≠y & (Fx & Fy)) Premise
3) -(Ex)(Ay)(x=y <->Fy) Assumption" which you suggest that I should resolve through turning -(Ex)(Ey)(x≠y & (Fx & Fy)) into (Ax)(Ay)~(x≠y & (Fx & Fy)) and through bringing a contradiction for the assumption at line three. I fail to do all this. Either I omit some details, or my mind is really slow lol

I will ask professor as well, to see what I do wrong.

Ok, I will give it a try after your suggestions and see where it leads.

One last question I have is whether it is legitimate in proofs to take three different variables (x,y,z) as being offered to two objects only (a,b,a)? I know that we can safely do that when we want to show that an argument is invalid, but I want to make sure if I can do that in provability as well. In the second post of this discussion, I brought such a proof that you saw and partly approved, but in the case that it slipped your attention here below I have attached the two premises where I take x and z as referring to the same object a..:

1) (Ax)[(Ey)Tyx-->(Az)~Txz] premise
2) (Ax)[(Ey)Tyx-->Txx premise

In the following lines I substitute the consequent (Az)~Txz with ~Taa and consequent Txx with Taa, in order to pave the way for the conclusion (Ax)(Ay)~Txy. But is it legitimate ?

With regard to your last reply, I am wondering if I can apply Double Negation to Ay-(a≠y & (Fa & Fy))...
viz:
1) Ay-(a≠y & (Fa & Fy)) (your suggestion)
2) -(a≠b & (Fa & Fb)) 1 AE for Uni Elim
3) a=b & (Fa & Fb) 2 DN

If step 3 is legitimate application of DN to step two, I think I have hopes to prove the conclusion....

The exercise I am trying to resolve is this: (Ex)Fx, -(Ex)(Ey)(x≠y & (Fx & Fy)) |-nk (Ex)(Ay)(x=y <->Fy)

I guess that since the conclusion is a biconditional, I may also assume one of its conditionals (viz. a=b-->Fb) with the hope of getting later the other way around (viz. Fb--> a=b), connect the two conditionals with &I rule, and get a binconditional with the biconditional intro rule (aka DF - rule of defnitions). That's my strategy, but there may be sequent introductions as well (which I do not remember very well) and I am not sure if the DF rule will help in discharging my assumption (a=b-->Fb). There may be other ways as well. I better try them tomorrow morning. I was wondering, however, what one may assume when the conclusion is a biconditional.

Ok. You have been very clear with the last two replies. Let us hope I can remember all those shift quantifiers --if in the test I'll have to deal with something similar to the domain with four objects.