Correct! (Why not be the first reveal? At least I can go comment on the thing now. :strong: ) — Baden

Yay! :starstruck:

Not with me. Bubbles and Styx is great. — Baden

No, I meant @hypericin. I'm annoyed with myself. It happens every time. Apologies to hypericin.
Will you ever forgive me? I should have recognised the brilliance but you blinded me with ice-cream.

So @Baden - you are Technoethics!

hypericin: Bubbles and Styx (I noted some particularly adept descriptive language that I think is characteristic of his work.) — Baden

Oh no, it looks like I've gone and caused offence. So very different to the The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox. Damn it all! But then, he is such a creatively versatile writer with many styles...

First I want to say that I'm really happy with all the work our authors put into the essays. There were more submissions than I expected, and they were all of a higher quality than I expected. It's been really awesome to read and come up with responses. — Moliere

Me too. But I expected the high quality and we got it! TPF is full of talent and intelligence :100:
This has been brilliant. Enjoyed near enough every minute of it!
Looking forward to your responses...

I hope I haven't offended anyone by my crazy guessing. Trust me, I'm hopeless at this!

Well, I've only got 2 left and you are one of them!!! :chin:
I'm veering towards My Soul...

Am I the only one that is gonna make wild guesses?

OK. Strange that he didn't recognise his own essay...hmmm....

I don't think mine in the list lol. — Bob Ross

What? Are you sure?

Cognitive Experiences are a Part of Material Reality - ucarr

My guesses, so far:

[TPF Essay] Wittgenstein's Hinges and Gödel's Unprovable Statements - Sam 26
[TPF Essay] Bubbles and Styx In: Pondering the Past - Baden
[TPF Essay] Dante and the Deflation of Reason - Count Timothy von Icarus
[TPF Essay] What Does It Mean to Be Human? - Vera Mont
[TPF Essay] Cognitive Experiences are a Part of Material Reality
[TPF Essay] The Frame Before the Question - James Dean Conroy
[TPF Essay] Part 1 & Part 2 - Poetic Universe
[TPF Essay] Technoethics: Freedom, Precarity, and Enzymatic Knowledge Machines -Benkei
[TPF Essay] The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox - hypericin
[TPF Essay] An Exploration Between the Balance Between State and Individual Interests
[TPF Essay] My Soul is like the Dead Sea -
[TPF Essay] The Insides and Outsides of 'Reality': Exploring Possibilities - Jack Cummins
[TPF Essay] The importance of the Philosophical Essay within philosophy - RusselA — Moliere

Who's left? Bob Ross, I like sushi, ucarr. Hmmm...
Essays left - Cognitive Experiences, Exploration Between the Balance, My Soul is like the Dead Sea.

Am I close? I usually get 2 or 3 correct :wink:

Hey there!
Thought I'd post the List of the 13 wonderful essays. Now all we need is for @Moliere to start the 'Meet the Authors' thread, or whatever he's going to call it...
Of course, some authors are easy to guess but best hold fire. Come on, Moliere!!!

[TPF Essay] Wittgenstein's Hinges and Gödel's Unprovable Statements
[TPF Essay] Bubbles and Styx In: Pondering the Past
[TPF Essay] Dante and the Deflation of Reason
[TPF Essay] What Does It Mean to Be Human?
[TPF Essay] Cognitive Experiences are a Part of Material Reality
[TPF Essay] The Frame Before the Question
[TPF Essay] Part 1 & Part 2
[TPF Essay] Technoethics: Freedom, Precarity, and Enzymatic Knowledge Machines
[TPF Essay] The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox
[TPF Essay] An Exploration Between the Balance Between State and Individual Interests
[TPF Essay] My Soul is like the Dead Sea
[TPF Essay] The Insides and Outsides of 'Reality': Exploring Possibilities
[TPF Essay] The importance of the Philosophical Essay within philosophy

Response
Part 2

According to Ray Monk, Wittgenstein saw philosophy as ‘the understanding that consists in seeing connections.’ For him his philosophy is an activity not a body of doctrine.

From PI 122:

A main source of our failure to understand is that we don’t have an overview of the use of our words. - Our grammar is deficient in surveyability. A surveyable representation produces precisely that kind of understanding which consists in ‘seeing connections’. Hence the importance of finding and inventing intermediate links.

The concept of a surveyable representation is of fundamental significance for us. It characterizes the way we represent things, how we look at matters. (Is this a ‘Weltanschauung’?)

A worldview. That of an individual or a collective? Both? Interacting. Linking. It is how we come to know by sharing thoughts and images.

As a collection of notes, On Certainty is thought-provoking with an imaginative use of metaphors. Some rigid pictures are painted, like hard ‘hinges’, structures. Others are soft and fluctuating like rivers.

Wittgenstein calls his/our picture of the world its inherited background. We don’t get this by looking at its correctness or because we are satisfied with it. (OC 94).
This is one example of how Wittgenstein replaces the need for grounds and foundations. Others can be found with movement around an axis (OC 152), community (OC 298) and system (OC142).

The inherited background is like the river-bed. However, cultural concepts change. Different generations see things differently but some things stay the same. The river-bed may shift (OC 97).

This ‘bedrock’ is not about justification of knowledge. Justification comes to an end. The river-bed ‘channels’ thought.

The movement of the water (day-to-day thinking)) interacts with the river-bed structures. The flow of thoughts can change the shape of the river’s bank and course. There is not a sharp division (OC 97). We can change the world or our picture of it and vice versa.

Ungrounded grounds and ungrounded foundations are not a necessary condition.
Instead of grounds, ungrounded or otherwise, Wittgenstein points to 152, 94, 298, 142 and probably other passages. No mention of foundations. He rejects that model.

The author is correct regarding Wittgenstein's break with traditional epistemology. He moved away from old views about establishing foundations, a solid base on which to build knowledge. Wittgenstein believes that our understanding of knowledge is found in how we live, our beliefs and practices. Our certainty is practical rather than theoretical.

It is philosophy as a way of life. Not just for academics but for all.

The essay addresses the important philosophical questions of knowledge, certainty and foundations. However, the author's theoretical interpretation of W. is open to doubt. Some might say incorrect. There are several things that have been pointed out that are contrary to what is claimed in the essay.

Finally, what matters lies in the connection and activity. Sharing the challenge to improve understanding.

Response in 2 Parts
Part 1

This essay is heavy with dry theory. The author attempts a comparative analysis of foundational certainties. Structural parallels are explored: between Wittgenstein’s concept of hinges in ‘On Certainty’ (OC) and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

According to the author:

Both thinkers uncover fundamental limits to internal justification: Wittgenstein shows that epistemic systems rest on unjustified certainties embedded in our form of life, while Gödel proves that mathematical systems require axioms that cannot be demonstrated within the system itself […] Both reveal that the search for completely self-grounding systems is not merely difficult but misconceived

.
As a reader, I want to know what this means, how true it is and why it matters.
The author tells us it has:

implications for understanding certainty and knowledge… we can develop more nuanced approaches to foundational questions in epistemology, philosophy of mathematics, and potentially other domains where the relationship between systematic inquiry and its enabling conditions remains philosophically significant.

About theories:
Ray Monk quotes Wittgenstein:

‘Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.’ It strives, not after scientific truth, but after conceptual clarity.

From: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/regulars/55561/wittgensteins-forgotten-lesson

The author writes:

In On Certainty, Wittgenstein introduces the idea of hinges as certainties that ground our epistemic practices. While Wittgenstein never explicitly distinguishes types of hinges, his examples suggest a distinction between non-linguistic and linguistic varieties, revealing different levels of fundamental certainties.
Non-linguistic hinges represent the most basic level of certainty,bedrock assumptions that ground our actions and interactions with the world. These are not expressed as propositions subject to justification or doubt but embodied in unreflective action.

With this distinction, the author goes further than Wittgenstein. There is no mention of non-linguistic hinges in OC. More of that later. Back to bedrock.
Bedrock is not the ground or foundation of belief.
From On Certainty:

110. But the end is not an ungrounded presupposition: it is an ungrounded way of acting.
166. The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.

From the author:

Wittgenstein breaks with traditional epistemology here. Rather than viewing these certainties as beliefs requiring justification, he recognizes them as the ungrounded ground that makes justification itself possible. He notes, "There is no why. I simply do not. This is how I act" (OC 148). Doubting these hinges would collapse the very framework within which doubt makes sense, like attempting to saw off the branch on which one sits.

What happens when we reach bedrock?

In an article, ‘ Wittgenstein on Faith and Reason’, Duncan Pritchard says:

… ‘rational support’ in question, being inherently local in this way, is not really bona fide rational support at all, in virtue of being ultimately groundless. Wittgenstein was certainly alert to this worry, writing that the “difficulty is to realise the groundlessness of our believing.” (OC, §166) On his view the regress of reasons comes to an end, but it does not come to end with further reasons of a special foundational sort as we were expecting. Instead, when we reach bedrock we discover only a rationally groundless “animal” commitment (OC, §359), a kind of “primitive” trust (OC, §475)

: https://www.academia.edu/19857441/Wittgenstein_on_Faith_and_Reason_The_Influence_of_Newman

In On Certainty: https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wittgenstein-on-certainty.pdf
Wittgenstein writes:

475. I want to regard man here as an animal; as a primitive being to which one grants instinct but not ratiocination. As a creature in a primitive state. Any logic good enough for a primitive means of communication needs no apology from us. Language did not emerge from some kind of ratiocination [Raisonnement].

In this essay, the author writes that we often perform actions without hesitation. Examples are given of sitting on a chair or picking up a pencil. The unthinking action ‘illustrates Wittgenstein’s concept of a hinge proposition.’

I find this problematic. It is an example of the author’s theoretical ‘non-linguistic hinge’.

So many things will count as hinges. There is no doubt that there is a chair when I sit on it. But what is the hinge? The existence of chairs, this chair, that it will hold me, that the floor will hold the chair and the weight of me?
Even if we agree to everything that the author concludes. What of it?
Would we understand ourselves any better?
Non-theoretical understanding. Isn’t that what Wittgenstein pursued?

This is a distinctly creative piece of work, especially the combination of writing and art. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely! :100:

It may have an originality which will make it extremely successful — Jack Cummins

No 'may' about it.

So much to take in...more later. — Amity

I love it! A profound debate wrapped in a gentle fable. I'll have to come back and read it again, for the sheer pleasure of it. I have no comment; it needs none. — Vera Mont

I am so disappointed that this hasn't received more attention. There is plenty to love and comment on.
At least to point out the parts that grabbed you, made you think or laugh. Or didn't.

I am still working on my final essay. For me, it's a toughie. I will never, ever read it again.

This one, I will. It's fabulous :starstruck:

Right after I've recovered from the big read and response. 13 essays. Wow!

This has been explained to you before.*
If you don't understand it by this time, you are either an idiot, being deliberately obtuse (boneheaded) or have limited reading comprehension.
The middle one seems most likely.
[ Apologies if you have Autism Spectrum Disorder, or similar]

* First time, 2 months ago, during our discussion on p4: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15749/philosophy-writing-challenge-june-2025-announcement/p4

Thanks for the reminder. To engage with the passages. I meant to return, especially to this:

c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
In Anishinaabe philosophy, being human means living in harmony with the natural world and other beings, guided by the Seven Grandfather Teachings of wisdom, love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility, and truth. This involves a lifelong commitment to being good, understanding one's place in the universe, and respecting the interconnectedness of all things.

This is a description of North American indigenous life and ideals. Social influence is introduced via the grandfathers, and the virtues men are urged to strive for are social virtues. We see a perspective very close to that of Confucius, but no closer to a meaning. — Author

Why no closer to a meaning? What does it mean to be human? Story telling in a community? To reach a better understanding of life as a work in progress. To keep it real.

Wiki says more but this excerpt appeals:

The Anishinaabe follow an oral storytelling tradition.[32] Storytelling serves as an integral part of Anishinaabe culture as "stories teach the stock of wisdom and knowledge found in the culture" and "promotes 'respectful individualism," wherein individuals do not force their thinking upon others.[33] Instead of directly teaching right and wrong, the Anishinaabe often use storytelling to share their history and cultural truths, including but not limited to the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.[33] Stories often "provide important lessons for living and give life purpose, value, and meaning."[34]: 184  They can further "include religious teachings, metaphysical links, cultural insights, history, linguistic structures, literary and aesthetic form, and Indigenous 'truths'."[32] By understanding traditional stories, individuals can better understand themselves, their world, where they came from, and where they are going.[34]: 184–185 

Storytelling is situational, meaning that storytellers must be mindful of audience, of listener, and [should] keep the oration accessible and real."[32] When a story is shared, "[t]he teller and the listener are equally activie; the listener is not passive."[32] Furthermore, stories told are not static: "Once they become public, people will play will them, embellish them, and add to them ... There is no need for any particular story to have any particular form. Nor is it the case that any one story can ever be said to have achieved its final form. Instead, all stories are works in progress."[33]
— Wiki - Anishinaabe

As a philosophical essay, this paper lacks a clear introductory thesis. No matter how interesting each part may be, there is no clear thesis that draws them together into a cohesive whole. — RussellA

Still clinging to the narrow perspective of philosophy writing, then?
Stay in the windowless boxroom of the palace of philosophy, if that keeps you happy.
Others combine intelligence with imagination and a creative spirit. To share an expansive view.

Clearly, we will not have space to consider all the issues listed above. What I would like to do instead is paint a portrait of an earlier, richer view of “reason.” My goal is to lay out a less familiar vision of rationality, and to show where it intersects with the aforementioned fault lines in modern thought. Good philosophy requires us to question our presuppositions. A consideration of the earlier view of reason can bring to light some of the hidden assumptions that give modern thought its unique shape. To make this contrast all the more stark, we shall not use one of the great pre-modern philosophers of mind for our comparison. Rather, we shall look to the greatest poet of the Middle Ages—and perhaps any age—to Dante Alighieri and hisDivine Comedy, following his pilgrimage through the afterlife as far as the top of Mount Purgatory.

Dante is a particularly apt choice for several reasons. First, he has an extremely wide role for rationality in human life. For Dante, man’s rational soul, far from being a mere tool, is central to what man is and how he “lives a good life.” Second, reason plays a central role in Dante’s conception of self-determination and human freedom. Finally, whereas today we are apt to see “love” as something irrational, and perhaps just one element of “a good life,” Dante sees love as the central thread running through the human experience (and indeed the entire cosmos). Dante’s vision, which sees reason primarily engaged within the context of love, and finding its purpose in love, offers us the most vibrant possible contrast to highly deflationary views such as eliminitive materialism. — Author

It covers more territory than any poem or prose piece I've ever read.
I'm impressed by the ambition, the audacity and the sheer quantity of work that went into this entry.
:clap: :clap: :clap: — Vera Mont

What a beautiful and encouraging thing to say. I love your choice of passages. I will be returning to this for some quiet meditation. I only have one more essay to comment on. After trudging through that, then I will need a peaceful sanctuary.

To enjoy the creative voice of the universe...

Whether created by some intelligence for a purpose or evolved naturally to fill a niche in its ecosystem, an entity exists. It has certain specific characteristics, properties and capabilities; that is every example of a species is similar to all the other examples – but not identical to any. Every individual has a lifespan containing a series of events, experiences and encounters that are not an exact duplicate of any other life. Sentient species perform purposeful acts; social species interact, are influenced by and form relationships with other members of their species, and intelligent ones set short- and/or long-term goals. — Author

This was the first essay I read. I return now to share this thought. The structure intrigued me.
I wondered why or how the author chose the representations. Is there an element of bias? Well, yes, it's personal. Does it matter?

I remember picturing the evolution of man. That strong image, seen here:
The Seven Stages of Human Evolution: Discoveries and Special Traits
https://krmangalamvaishali.com/blogs/7-stages-of-human-evolution/

***
I counted all the fascinating eras under consideration:

1. BCE 384 – 322
2. BCE 551-479
3. 800–870 CE
4. 1138-1204
5. 1712-1778
6. c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
7. 1818- 1883

Seven male-oriented. Finally one woman!

8.1963 – present

Still evolving.

At 8.

Joanna Bourke's understanding of mankind is more subtle and malleable. She puts the human species in the context of nature and evolution, as well as its own history and cultures. She sees mankind as connected to an ecosystem that necessarily contains all other life forms. She argues that previous definitions have been too rigid, limited and self-serving. No instructions in virtue or assignment of goals; no higher purpose. — Author

From the References, I note the Marginalian article. Some excerpts:

Bourke also admonishes against seeing the historical trend in paradigms about humanness as linear, as shifting “from the theological towards the rationalist and scientific” or “from humanist to post-humanist.” How, then, are we to examine the “porous boundary between the human and the animal”?

In complex and sometimes contradictory ways, the ideas, values and practices used to justify the sovereignty of a particular understanding of ‘the human’ over the rest of sentient life are what create society and social life. Perhaps the very concept of ‘culture’ is an attempt to differentiate ourselves from our ‘creatureliness,’ our fleshly vulnerability.

Curiously, Bourke uses the Möbius strip as the perfect metaphor for deconstructing the human vs. animal dilemma. Just as the one-sided surface of the strip has “no inside or outside; no beginning or end; no single point of entry or exit; no hierarchical ladder to clamber up or slide down,” so “the boundaries of the human and the animal turn out to be as entwined and indistinguishable as the inner and outer sides of a Möbius strip.” Bourke points to Derrida’s definition as the most rewarding, calling him “the philosopher of the Möbius strip.”

Ultimately, What It Means to Be Human is less an answer than it is an invitation to a series of questions, questions about who and what we are as a species, as souls, and as nodes in a larger complex ecosystem of sentient beings. As Bourke poetically puts it,

'Erasing the awe-inspiring variety of sentient life impoverishes all our lives.'

The question of what makes us human becomes not one of philosophy alone but also of politics, justice, identity, and every fiber of existence that lies between. — The Marginalian - What Does it Mean to be Human - 300 years of Definitions and Reflections

[my emphasis]

I like that there is no one answer to the essay's question: What Does it Mean to be Human?
Any answers/ideas not found in philosophy alone but philosophy interacting in other spheres.

So far, this quest for a meaning seems to have produced nothing more profound than descriptions, injunctions and aspirations.
Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal. — Author

The tentative conclusions make sense to me. Sometimes, all we can do is to describe.
To share the particulars of being human as we interact with other beings in the ever-changing world. The universe and our place in it beyond our comprehension...but we never stop imagining.

When it comes to creating a blueprint for the ideal societal liberty, the differences in such schemes lie in how far they lean toward individual liberty or collective liberty. Many utopian ideals are presented and all of them are left wanting either in the justification of their aims, the responsibility given or taken, or in viewing some form of enforced equality. As Popper remarks, this predicament has been with us since the birth of civilization in our move away from the state of nature—closed society—toward the state of reason—open society (Popper, 1962). — Author

I think this sums up well the problems of freedom. Both as a philosophical concept and the practice.
Is it possible to create a fair and balanced society to meet the needs, wants and demands of humans?
Humans who have to cope with their own feelings, reasons and manipulations of behaviour. Most seek some kind of certainty or security. They don't want to live the 'natural' life of the savage. But perhaps, humans, even in the midst of so-called civilised society, react to oppression with passion and violence.

The global view is scary. The freedom of governments and powerful individuals would seem to be leading to dystopia rather than utopia. Is this being deliberately engineered? Yes, it would seem so.
Whether any of the regime leaders have read Rousseau or Hobbes, Plato or Schiller is open to question.

In the UK, PMs have studied at Oxford or some other high-ranking University. Achieving a degree in PPE. The course - Philosophy, Politics and Economics:

This arose from the belief that the advanced study of all three subjects would transform students’ intellectual lives, to great social benefit. This conviction remains as firm today as it was then. As the world has evolved, so has PPE. The course brings together some of the most important approaches to understanding the world around us, developing skills useful for a wide range of careers and activities. — PPE - Oxford University

Who knows how much attention they paid. Arguably, of greater value were connections in the top hierarchy of society. The lives pursued. The good life of hedonism, narcissism, the privileged. That's a generalisation but one can't help thinking of the Tories and Boris Johnson. The creation of rules for the plebs during covid - the necessary restriction of freedom - compared to their own flaunting of the rules.
Partying while people died.

That's just one example. The most recent barbaric abuse of power can be witnessed in Trump's America. Changing from a democracy to an autocracy, if not a dictatorship.
Discussed in another TPF essay: The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/993416

In conclusion, any idealisation of liberty expressed within a state lies exposed to the slippery slope of utopian engineering. Therefore, true individual liberty, through Schiller’s aesthetic sensibility, provides a mediating association that can inculcate necessary changes to institutions and prevent them from stagnating by facilitating a means of universal discourse between a plurality of ideas expressed within the public sphere. — Author

I would say the danger lies in dystopian engineering. Aesthetics, beauty and play now at risk. Increasingly out of reach. Arts and creativity clamped down on. The overwhelming need is for people to survive the onslaught. Maslow's pyramid comes to mind.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

I found the following comments interesting and look forward to hearing more:

it represents just the type of thinking we need now with the gap between ideological "freedom" and actual freedom becoming ever wider. As an aside, I think Italian theorist Franco Berardi with his idea of poesis and rhythm as paths of resistance forms a useful bridge between Schiller and Byung-Chul Han. Anyway, thank you for this stimulating and very well written piece. I'm interested in discussing it more with you when your identity is revealed. — Baden

I do wonder if we might not now be facing the opposite risk though (although one Schiller might still help with), a sort of "fear of the utopian and principled," a "lack of faith in logos (the life of reason)" paired with an outright fear of thymos (the life of spirit/honor/excellence). — Count Timothy von Icarus

The nature of Freedom is only contemplated in complex societies, where bondage exists. That is, dysfunctional societies. All that can be negotiated is how to mitigate the imbalance.
It's nice to have an overview of how philosophers have dealt with that question. — Vera Mont

(I eagerly anticipate the author's comments.) — Vera Mont

Yes. Same here. I've enjoyed our meandering musings. Amusement in mystification. The author had better put us out of our miserable happiness. It's all too much. Not long now... :cool:

I'm long out of date on Camus, but I came away with the impression of an ethical being. — Vera Mont

Yes. He was ethical. However, in the Myth of Sisyphus, he writes of an ethics which is less about accepting social moral codes and more about individuals and their values. This is within his theory of absurdism. Outside society's standards. He uses Don Juan as an example of an absurd hero. To illustrate that the only thing worthwhile is the quantity of life experiences not the quality. That is the best life. So, we listen to the catalogue of conquests:

Madamina, il catalogo è questo

My dear lady, this is the list
Of the beauties my master has loved,
A list which I have compiled.
Observe, read along with me.

In Italy, six hundred and forty;
In Germany, two hundred and thirty-one;
A hundred in France; in Turkey, ninety-one;
But in Spain already one thousand and three.

Among these are peasant girls,
Maidservants, city girls,
Countesses, baronesses,
Marchionesses, princesses,
Women of every rank,
Every shape, every age.

With blondes it is his habit
To praise their kindness;
In brunettes, their faithfulness;
In the white-haired, their sweetness.

In winter he likes fat ones.
In summer he likes thin ones.
He calls the tall ones majestic.
The little ones are always charming.

He seduces the old ones
For the pleasure of adding to the list.
His greatest favourite
Is the young beginner.

It doesn't matter if she's rich,
Ugly or beautiful;
If she wears a skirt,
You know what he does. — Wiki

Don Juan does what it takes to satisfy his selfish desires at the expense of others. He is amoral. Unconcerned whether something is right or wrong. A slippery slide to immorality. Wickedness.
He kills the Commendatore, the father of a girl he has seduced.

Camus doesn't seem to be concerned about the immorality. But that is just my understanding. And Camus moved on from that. Also, from hopelessness to hope.

Sounds like a big order. We can manage without other people's theories, if we're clever and confident enough to make our own, but we can't do without other people. I have never seen amorality in practice. — Vera Mont

I agree. What interests me is Camus' prime examples of the absurd hero.
Sisyphus and Don Juan. Fictional characters.

I have probably misinterpreted my reading of Camus...I'm a beginner...

Where were we again? Oh yes, suicide, tearing off the mask...is painless?
The killing of one self so that another self lives. The good wins? Hmmm...

Emotion can win over hard logic. Quality of care over quantity of facts and ticking boxes.
We can think ourselves to suicide but can be pulled back from the brink by that beating heart:

The drive to survival - our oldest, deepest, most compelling instinct. Hopelessness is wholly rational, imposed by force of logic on the eternal spring in every beating heart. — Vera Mont

That is avoiding the question. — RussellA

No. It isn't. It is a suggestion. Take it or leave it. I am not about to spoon-feed you.

I don't understand where the paradox comes from. — RussellA

Try reading the essay carefully. Not only what the paradox is, but its effects.

What makes this paradox politically dangerous is not just its incoherence but its corrosive effect on democratic norms and public solidarity. It promotes the illusion of self-sufficiency, undermines trust in institutions and casts redistributive policies as threats to liberty rather than its conditions. At the same time it elevates figures who use public power for private gain and disguises domination as freedom.

The ideology enables policies that weaken safety nets, disenfranchise the vulnerable and concentrate power in unaccountable hands. It fosters political apathy and strengthens demagogues who promise freedom while dismantling its foundations. The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox is not just a contradiction. It is a script for democratic decline disguised as moral clarity. — Author

Recent events have shown the danger of Trump to American democracy.
Trump believes that he, as President, is above the rule of law. He is in aggressive pursuit of expanding presidential power. He feels he has the authority to do whatever he wants.
His MAGA freedom is only for those who are in agreement with him. Objectors are traitors and will be punished accordingly. And more. He is an autocrat if not a dictator.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-tells-us-the-u-s-is-heading-toward-a-dictatorship/

Hypocrisy is only a part of it.

A reminder - see bolds.

After the authors are revealed on June 16th the authors can:
1. Respond to the comments and feedback.
2. Join in the general discussion, compare and contrast other essays. Note: authors, as readers, can comment on specific essays before this — Moliere

Authors can, are encouraged to, respond to other essays not their own. The more the merrier.

There must be some accessible mental tools for regular people to cope with the approaching turbulence. — Vera Mont

And so, the demand is created:

EKMs can be defined as abstract machinic assemblages of functional conceptual elements that are designed to be “plugged in” to psychic systems with the explicit goal of transformative catalyses that are reproduced outwards from subjects to culture. The enzymatic knowledge machine aims to borrow the stimulative operatonality of technocapitalism to turn it against itself.

Of course, EKMs are not intended to be dogmatic statements of truth, an orientation that would undermine their spirit. They are rather modes of knowledge catalysis that may help to provide a means to resist degradative manipulation by abstract social machines of conditioning that encourage us to outsource our cognitive capacities, bureaucratize our mental states, and degrade our semantic salience. — Author

How does this plugging-in take place? — Vera Mont

Oh, God. This is hilarious. The sales pitch for EKMs. Buy one, get one free! Batteries not included.

I did that. But posting something in a forum solicits responses; I felt I had to say something. Which was: I don't know what to say. — Vera Mont

Even not knowing what to say, you still typed the words, your thoughts. Look where they led. To a deeper exploration.

I'm now thinking about the issue of pain. Physical and mental. The philosophy of detachment from it, and even hope. 'Indifference' and non-attachment.
Is this wholly possible or even desirable? Perhaps acceptable as a theory but in practice?

We can practise habits of thought and some principles could indeed become a core part of who we are - but it seems to me that having such perfectly, absolute ideals ( are they?) sets us up for a fall. To fail to meet external and internal standards...can prove disappointing, even devastating for some. If it's a case of all or nothing, some choose nothing. The pendulum swings.

What is it about Greek Myths and their appeal?

On contemplating suicide. In 'The Myth of Sisyphus', Camus writes of two forms: physical and philosophical. Camus wants to live life without appeal - on his own terms without recourse to religion, hope or the big theories of others. Without morals. Amoral. Hope is seen as irrational - the opposite of reason. Airy-fairy without substance. Camus counts quantity of life experiences over its quality as being best. Hope is a quality, not possible to touch, count or account for. So, discounted.

And yet, he uses immaterial imagination to tell his story. To interpret the Greek Myth of Sisyphus. His way. Not my way. Another story...of hope. I believe that we are not attached to hope, rather it is attached to us. Even if we don't see it. It is there. It is part of 'hopelessness'.

Hope is like the sun. That glorious natural and symbolic star. Always there. No matter the weather. The fog and darkness will lift. The wind breezes change. Moods move us. We move, or remove, moods.
We 'live and die on this day'. Follow the seasons. The flight of birds. The rhythm. The rhyme.

“My soul is like the Dead Sea, over which no bird is able to fly; when it has come midway, it sinks down, exhausted, to death and destruction.” – (Kierkegaard, A Fragment of Life) — Author

Pace or peace yourself. Let imagine fly. Sink with hope into poetry. The poetry of philosophy.

“Hope” is the thing with feathers
By Emily Dickinson

“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -

And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -

I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.

What makes this paradox politically dangerous is not just its incoherence but its corrosive effect on democratic norms and public solidarity. — Author

The institutions radical individualists reject are the very structures that allow people to act safely and intelligibly. Moving through public space without fear, challenging injustice in court or accessing healthcare are not natural conditions. They support agency and to treat them as constraints is to misunderstand how freedom is obtained in fact. — Author

Hannah Arendt distinguishes between private freedom from interference and public freedom through action. The latter, she argues, is the political kind: appearing, speaking and acting with others in a shared space. Retreating into the household, the market or the self does not protect freedom. It eliminates it. — Author

the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means. — Author

Trump commands state machinery and nationalist rhetoric, — Author

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense

The liberty paradox - more dangerous than mere hypocrisy - is shown in its extreme form.
Trump, the current criminal in charge of the USA, uses the common sense of authoritarianism.
Threated by protest, he brings all his power to bear. He is free so to do. He celebrates this and commands the state institutions to oppress those against him. Freedom not for them. Quite the opposite.

California on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the US president of “unlawfully” federalizing the state’s national guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an “unprecedented usurpation” of state powers, according to the court filing. — Guardian - Los Angeles ICE protests

Trump sends thousands more troops to LA as mayor says city is being used as an ‘experiment’
California leaders condemn ‘authoritarian’ president as demonstrations over immigration raids continue in Los Angeles and beyond. — The Guardian

Defence secretary Pete Hegseth went further, announcing that active-duty Marines stationed nearby had been placed on "high alert" for mobilisation.

Posting on X, Governor Newsom responded: "The Secretary of Defence is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behaviour." — Sky News

No longer an academic exercise. An essay in power and liberty. This is happening.
The author's choice of high profile Trump vindicated.

the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. Yet each depends on immense institutional power. — Author

The common sense of an authoritarian. To protect himself from the protesting public. Public freedom in action will not be tolerated. Trump. The criminal, bully and coward in charge.

I respectfully disagree. No soul's journey is boring! — Vera Mont

Yes, of course. I mean no disrespect to the life/mind being explored. I meant that there is no need for me to know the past. It would make it more interesting perhaps but it stands fascinating as it is. Joining in the narrative where it is. Or was. Connecting dots with crayon. Or pencil to be rubbed out when I start over!

I grasp for meaning and coherence in literature, precisely because there is so much uncertainty, incomprehension and miscommunication in life. — Vera Mont

Ah, yes, so do I. But not always. It's the attempt to understand what the author is trying to convey by whatever means. Or not. Sometimes, it is in the giving up and simply enjoying the play of words. The impressions left to haunt...

We can usually do this without tearing ourselves to pieces. — Vera Mont

Yes, of course, but this is like a Greek Myth. Still fascinating after all these years. Stories with psychological aspects. The complex and the subtle. To illustrate the complex problems of human existence. It draws on philosophies from the ancient to the modern. Poetry found in films. Images of survival, or not. The resilience we need when chased by a pack of wolves in an icy wilderness when we have nothing. We are only food.

“Once more into the fray,
Into the last good fight I’ll ever know,
Live and die on this day,
Live and die on this day.”2
– (The Grey, 2011) — Author

Is this referring to resurrection and the afterlife of which he will know nothing? A new and 'unrecognisable version' of the self. Hmmm...troubled by religion, there is a crisis of faith. If he is unacceptable to God, then he can longer accept Him.

The tearing of the external face to face the abyss of...what, nothingness? And then what? Is there a rising of the soul without need of religion or appeal to any gods or devils? Society can get stuffed.
The self is sufficient. But is it?

Sometimes the loneliness and frustration makes them despondent, even suicidal, and they struggle against that impulse. I intuit their feeling of hopeful hopelessness, but can't respond to them appropriately. I suspect what we have here is the last mentioned. — Vera Mont

Perhaps so. Perhaps we don't need to respond. Perhaps they don't want us to.
Perhaps we just need to listen. Perhaps imagine. Isn't that what the author is trying to get at.
To somehow convey a message of how to live. The point is to live. To find peace and wellbeing.
To know what we can control, and what we can't.

The first battle was her thoughts; the second was her actions; and the third was her habits. Until finally, there it was: the thumping chest. She lifts the heavy lid, and there is a heart—branded with the word “εὐδαιμονία”. — Author

***

There are no answers forthcoming because it is left to the reader to find their own meaning.
— Amity
That's what I'm talking about. It's not about me or anyone I can identify with, so the only meaning I could find would be intellectual, which is context-dependent. — Vera Mont

I think you underplay your talent for imagination and narrative skills. I haven't been in outer space or witnessed a murder or crucifixion or a helluva lot of things. I read about them, or listen, with an inner eye or ear. Filling in any gaps...or not. You are an actual author of novels. A creative artist with high intelligence.
The author leads us to boldly go where...

What happened to bring about this state of affairs? What should the author's soul have been walking on that he was prevented from walking? What prevented it?
I see a painful, self-destructive situation, but I do not see its cause, and without the cause and history, I can't comprehend it. — Vera Mont

I don't pretend to fully understand it either. It is a challenge. I appreciate the further prodding to look again. Here I go...

The reader steps in to a (hi)story of identity. For me, the author doesn't need to spell out the background.
That would be boring. Gaps are left to be filled by the imagination. It is poetry. With questions to be puzzled over and not made obvious. Uncertainty is not to everyone's taste. But when is life ever certain?

She has walked the common path undisturbed, and exactly this wellness has made her sick: normality is a paved road — Author

I wrote my initial interpretation above:

The betrayal lies in his covering up, denying his true self or nature. For the sake of 'normality'. No flowers for him. The pain of not being recognised or to be able 'to live with oneself'. — Amity

The social and public identity is a facade to fit in. Like wearing a mask to act a part. The real self not being shown. Repressed or oppressed by social norms into a showpiece of 'wellness'. All is well with the world, not. Life is a painful sham. So, an identity crisis in the making...

Why is this soul sick from ordinary living? Is there something unusual about the author that he can't tolerate living among us mortals, or is there something different about him that we ordinary mortals don't tolerate? To me, it matters which is meant. It matters what the demons are and what the Devil wants. No answers are forthcoming. — Vera Mont

The life being led is not authentic. The suffering is mostly mental. It is about coming to know yourself and the internal struggles - perhaps between the good and the bad, virtue and vice, God and the Devil.
All part of our self. We humans are a mix. I can imagine whisperings in my ear.

The demons sit on the left shoulder, the angels on the right. Both vying for attention. What part of us do we feed at any given time. Do we practice bad or good life habits. What is it that we want? Who are we?
It is finding peace or equanimity in the chaos of life's desires. The battles of the selves; higher and lower.

There are no answers forthcoming because it is left to the reader to find their own meaning.
To try to follow the path of the author, weaving a myth and mystery. Until we reach the end.
And then, we start over because we don't quite get it.

Invictus is similar in that it's about control. How we manage the course of inner life. To take charge of the soul (or mind). To not let anyone or anything conquer it. 'Bloody but unbowed'.

That's my take and all I can muster. And perhaps it's all just a load of rubbish-y fantasy...

I don't know about the authors, or other readers, but I'm enjoying taking time to read and respond to each essay. To puzzle things out before someone steps in to correct my interpretation. Because I change my mind as I go along. Other aspects of an issue or questions arise. For me, it's a fascinating process. Slow and deliberate interspersed with sparks and flashes!

Even if I'm nowhere near the mark, the essays have stimulated and provoked thoughts and feelings.
Each one has something different to offer. Thank you, again, dear authors.

I wish more readers would join in. Rather than stick to one or two essays, why not explore further? I think some essays and their ideas could do with a bit more attention, love and critical appraisal. Encouragement.

I think I have one left to read and respond to. Two, if you count Wittgenstein...

Looking forward to meeting the authors. Linking up the 'what' with the 'who'.
Thanks to @Moliere - The list of authors will come out on the 15th for the guessing game. Then the reveal on the 16th, so the authors can give feedback and natter...hopefully, if not too discouraged.

The 'she' is in the body of a 'he'. The Soul. — Amity

Perhaps, it is more simple and straightforward.
A revealing and healing of a human's torn soul or mind.

The diamond appears, as it were, only after the immense pressure: every last drop of the blood of her old self must be squeezed out of the pores of her soul. She will no longer hide from the Devil; and in the end the Devil will not be able to find her. This body is mere flesh: its pain is its own—not hers. Equanimity shall be her new name: no calamity can touch her—so long as as she does not allow it to damage her character. — Author

A beautifully described transformation. From old to new self. From one kind of indifference to another.
The equanimity of Stoicism - or similar philosophies - the understanding of the transient nature of external circumstances, to disregard and detach from bodily pain. To take care of one's character, to cultivate a resilient and tranquil mind. As in the Serenity Prayer. To know what is in our control and what is not.

The author knows. :pray: :sparkle:

My Soul is like the Dead Sea

This song comes to mind.

1974 My Soul - Lesley Duncan (singer/songwriter - a rare public performance)

Who'd be a woman, in this God forsaken town
Oh how I wish I could go
Giving to people I know will bring me down
And if I ache I dare not show, show

My soul, It's stretched at and torn
My soul, Is bleeding and worn
My soul, Must be re-born

Go on.... Go on and use me
I'm just to weak to try
How could you understand my pain
Yes you'll abuse me
You'll fill your cup and fly
Leaving me on the ground again, whoa

Oh no, not gonna make it
Oh no, not gonna take it
[...]

My soul, Is bound to heal
My soul, Will break the seal
My soul, Must be revealed

Sunlight Music Ltd.

Why, in an essay about one ideology would the author be criticizing another ideology? Shouldn't the essay be about what the author says it's about? There will be plenty of critics to drag in completely unrelated topics. — Vera Mont

I look forward to reading the author's feedback. Until then, then. The 16th June.

No, it's too sad, painful and hopeless. It reminds me of too many instances of real, physical suffering that I've witnessed, and I have no will to witness another. I have to leave this one alone. — Vera Mont

One more time, Vera? I know that it sounds painful and hopeless. However, I think it is the pain of not being who you are and the struggle to unveil yourself and 'come out' of your shell.
The 'she' is in the body of a 'he'. The Soul.

She has walked the common path undisturbed, and exactly this wellness has made her sick: normality is a paved road—it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow on it 1. She has no flower to call her own, and the chasm in her heart has grown to large: she rips herself apart, just to sew herself back together. I betrayed her for a while. — Author

The betrayal lies in his covering up, denying his true self or nature. For the sake of 'normality'.
No flowers for him. The pain of not being recognised or to be able 'to live with oneself'.

“Nosce te ipsum”: there has been no more useful of a proverb; and there is no price too great to be able to live with oneself. So she faced the legions; she took the blows; she bled the blood; she adapted; she became stronger—an unrecognizable version of herself. The first battle was her thoughts; the second was her actions; and the third was her habits. Until finally, there it was: the thumping chest. She lifts the heavy lid, and there is a heart—branded with the word “εὐδαιμονία”. — Author

I don't know if my interpretation is correct (probably not!) but it is what came to me first thing this morning.
As you commented, Vera:

in the meanwhile, it will haunt me. — Vera Mont

I think this essay is not hopeless. Sad, yes, but hopeful. It moves from dark to light.
'She took the blows' and did it 'Her Way'.
Sorry to invoke Frank Sinatra but...there ya' go!

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way

What is human, what have we got?
If not ourselves, then we have naught
To say the things we truly feel
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows, we take the blows
To do it our way.

This can be seen as the powerless taking control to find peace and wellbeing. "εὐδαιμονία”.
The battles are first with our selves. To think, to act, to cultivate positive habits. As far as we are able.
Wiktionary: (ethics) Eudaimonia (in Aristotelian ethics, a condition of living a life of the highest virtue; the state of human flourishing, which is desirable in and of itself, rather than as a means towards some other end)

Just a few thoughts...along the way.
And yes:

It's beautiful, evocative, intimate and disturbing. — Vera Mont

Well done, author! :sparkle: :flower:

Yes. I agree.

Some acts are done without thinking through all the consequences.
The act deliberate but also spontaneous and not necessarily directed towards other posters.
It is also self-destructive.

OK.