I'll respond to an OP of any quality as long as a thought comes along that I think might help. — Moliere

Good attitude, I think. But there are Guidelines to follow, doncha know?!

I didn't expect it to lead to a member self-deleting, but I hope they come back. — Moliere

Sounds like it was probably the final straw. I'm just interested to know the book's title and author.
Can you remember? Or have access to deleted posts?

Mystery member posted a new discussion that consisted of a book title, a link to the book, and basically nothing else except for some words to the effect of "here is a book" (not even anything concerning the book's content). I deleted it for low quality and neglected to tell mystery member why I did so. Mystery member began self-erasing, and the rest is history. — Jamal

From the Shoutbox:

Since @Moliere had actually replied to the OP, he might have a different view of the matter. I don't think I’m exaggerating when I say it had zero substance. The problem with my actions is that I didn’t bother sending a message to the member to let them know why I deleted it. I think I was feeling quite grumpy at the time—and now look what’s happened.

It would be interesting to hear about the book and @Moliere's response.
What was it?

Rather than a swift deletion of the OP without explanation, perhaps a more respectful response would have been to reply in the thread and request more information be provided.

My thoughts about Trump and his common sense are revealed in previous posts.
No further comment.

he may have had a new view on everything, and then puff, vanished into thin air. — javi2541997

He has not vanished. I hope he is still around and not taken action which may be even more drastic.
That people can change is self-evident. I will not speculate as to the reasons but I wish him well.
Thank you, Tim, for all our exchanges. I hold and cherish the good times. You know it!

You have done what I've felt like doing at least 3 times. Be well.
Take care :sparkle:

I wish we had a chance to talk before you left. Not that that would have changed anything.
But still...I hope there is someone...to reach out to, who will listen...and somewhere else to go that gives you what you are looking for. Perhaps, peace of mind. :pray:

If you wish, I believe there is a way via @Jamal whereby you can ask for my email.
That happened after the banning of my good friend, Olivier5. Just for a few words...it can help...

. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism.
— Jack Cummins

:100: I agree. Who would want authoritarianism. Common sense is better. — RussellA

The common sense of an authoritarian:

Donald Trump signs order proclaiming there are only two sexes
In what Trump's administration has branded a "common sense" order, the government will recognise only two sexes, ending all federal funding or recognition of gender identities.

It is one of two branded as "common sense" orders and will end all federal funding or recognition of gender identities.
Mr Trump confirmed the move in his inaugural speech, saying: "As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female."

The definition of male and female will be based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes.

Under the order, prisons and settings such as shelters for migrants and rape victims would be segregated by sex, based on this criteria.

Officials also said the order would impact federal documents including passports.

The order would also block requirements at government facilities and at workplaces that transgender people be referred to using the pronouns that align with their gender.

Mr Trump's team says those requirements violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion.

The second "common sense" order targets diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and ends their federal funding.

As part of this, officials said there would be a monthly meeting of relevant agencies to assess any DEI programs and whether they should be shut down.
— Sky News Trump - There are only two sexes

Edit to add:
Previous comment related to common sense as described in the essay:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992326

Done. Perhaps all posts, irrelevant to the essay, can now be moved there, or deleted. Thanks.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16007/deleted-user

I am sorry to say that we have a completely different approach and understanding of this.
I don't see what you see, and you don't see what I see.
It happens. You are entitled to your views, I mine.
I will leave it there. Thank you.

What is the subject of this essay? — RussellA

I tend to start with the title. Then the subtitle:

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense — Author

The author introduces us to a worldview. A study. A way of looking at power and freedom.

This is what I call the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: a worldview that denounces power, structure and constraint while glorifying individuals who wield all three. — Author

The effects of the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox are outlined and explored. The essay offers an interpretation of 'radical individualism' as exemplified in 3 globally recognised individuals. It relates to the issues of manipulation and morality. Is 'what is good for one, good for all'?

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

I am grateful to the author for this helpful interpretation of what is new to me, 'Radical Individualism'. I realise that there is more than one perspective, including e.g. from psychology and religion. They seem to align with the ideas expressed. I posted earlier:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992647

I think most people can see the paradox, or hypocrisy, but would not be able to put a name to it.
They would, however, recognise 'One rule for us, another for them'.
As exemplified in the UK's ex-PM, Boris Johnson, at the time of the covid pandemic.
In full: Boris Johnson's apology over lockdown drinks party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59969631

One rule for us, another rule for them’ will be Boris Johnson’s legacy
The prime minister is the foremost exponent of ‘one rule’ and always has been, but this sort of behaviour is far from unique to him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-one-rule-tory-party-b1992319.html

***

I agree with this:

When radical individualism is taken at face value, the result isn’t a flourishing of liberty but the quiet dismantling of its conditions: public goods erode, solidarities fray and those most in need are told their suffering is a personal failure, not a systemic injustice. It breeds cynicism toward democracy and opens the door for authoritarian figures to redefine freedom as obedience to themselves. What begins as a philosophy of personal sovereignty ends in the normalisation of power without accountability. — Author

Power without accountability. Think about it. Who comes to mind?

Drama Queen! :razz:

Deleted User
0
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed. — Deleted User

@Jamal - so sorry to hear of this dramatic turn of events.
All of this and the way it has been handled is most unfortunate.
I would like to add my thoughts but this is not the place.

Could the posts concerning Deleted User ( Tim Wood) be moved to a more appropriate spot. Not the Shoutbox where only a few enter!

Is the Feedback category accessible without signing in? The loss of a long-term member is not easy to take on board or process...the loss of the posts and shared thoughts, poetry and music. Ouch!
Also, I think Tim might find it helpful to read...even if he might be needing a really, long break.

The essay is challenging and rather long, so I shall have to read it in sections, reflect and comment before continuing. — Vera Mont

This essay is not a breeze. Ironically, it's the first time I've been tempted to use AI for translation purposes. I appreciate your engagement and recognise the struggle to fully comprehend.

The central idea, if my understanding of it is correct, does certainly fit my perception of the world in which I live. However, the language is ten degrees too abstruse for me and some of the concepts, beyond my ability to visualize. I don't recommend it as a tool-kit for the average producer, voter and consumer. — Vera Mont

I found a toolkit. https://dumbitdown.ai/
And found it all too amusing. 3 sections:
I a)
Original:
This essay amounts to a critique of a consumerist culture that is driven by technology and rooted in capitalism. The proximate goal is not to suggest alternative political systems but to offer conceptual tools to help protect free subjectivity as a creative and self-creating force through presenting in a brief introductory way a theory concerning its cultural situatedness. This theory is grounded in a constructivist paradigm that sees subjects as both biologically and socially constituted, and it leverages the difference between the ontological freedom inherent to subjectivity and socially granted nominal freedoms to highlight the former’s precarity in our increasingly technosocial milieu.

b) Dumbed down:
This essay criticizes a culture focused on buying things, which is driven by technology and capitalism. The main aim is not to propose new political ideas, but to provide tools to help people maintain their creativity and individuality. It briefly explains a theory about how our culture shapes us. This theory is based on the idea that we are shaped by both our biology and society. It points out the difference between the true freedom we have as individuals and the limited freedoms given to us by society, showing how the first one is at risk in today's tech-driven world.

2 a)
Original:
This theory of the precarious contemporary position of subjectivity is intended as a symbolically textured tool, an “enzymatic knowledge machine” (EKM), aimed to enhance and intensify that subjectivity through alerting it to its precarity. 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.

b) Dumbed down:
This idea talks about a special tool called an “enzymatic knowledge machine” (EKM) that helps people understand and improve their own thoughts and feelings by making them aware of their fragile situation. EKMs are like different parts that can connect to our minds to help us change for the better and influence culture in a positive way. They aim to use the powerful aspects of modern technology and capitalism against their negative effects.

EKMs are not meant to be strict rules or truths; instead, they are ways to help us think for ourselves and resist outside influences that try to control how we think, make us less aware, or simplify our understanding.

3 a)
Original:
What we have outlined above is a warning that situates human subjects in a diachronic hierarchy between biological and social reality and a synchronic relationship with other subjects that both potentializes and creates their status as free agents. However, we claim that the nested system that is the human, self-aware, subject is sandwiched between other self-reproducing (“autopoietic”) systems which can be semantically operative without agency. This amounts to positing our agency as a contingent and precarious epiphenomenon of operations alien in their telos to our well-being. We have also claimed that the rapid advance of technocapitalism make an awareness of this all the more salient and urgent. The overall implication of our claims is that technocapitalism is a global cultural machine for producing nominally free subjectivities while eroding ontological freedom. It creates and processes subjectivity as a product to be sold (e.g. to advertisers) and converted into more capital. In fact, we claim capital, in its operation through autopoietic social systems for which freedom is epiphenomenal, essentially expands through monetizing the conversion of ontological to nominal freedom. The ultimate result of this, we have cautioned, may be an irreversible decline of both culture and the subjects that form it.

b) Dumbed down:
This text talks about how humans are caught between biological needs and social pressures. It says that while we think we are free to make choices, our freedom is influenced by many other systems around us that don't need to think or have awareness. These systems can affect us in ways that might not always be good for our well-being. The rise of technology and capitalism makes this situation more important to understand. The main point is that capitalism creates a false sense of freedom while actually taking it away, treating individual identities as products that can be sold. This can lead to a serious decline in both culture and the people who make it.

***
Clearly, some find this essay excellent. They can relate to the writing because they share the language and can connect. Already primed, as in:

It shares concerns with a recent discussion in the Negative Dialectics reading group, about Adorno's claim that human beings were "becoming ideology," by which he meant that subjectivity was becoming no more than a construct of commodification and the culture industry. In that discussion I also happened to mention Hans-Georg Moeller's theory of profilicity, which is centrally based on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory.

I hope to come back and say something more interesting. — Jamal

I really hope you do.

***
I am now sold on using AI. I acknowledge my ignorance re the issues discussed. But I get the general gist, I think. The risk to humans minds if too reliant on machines. Buying into the laziness of non-thinking. That's what I got, anyway. Grateful for further clarification. In plain English, if you please.

When these processes dominate society, we fall into what Stiegler refers to as a “proletarianization” of mind, a general mindset unaware and / or unwilling to potentialize itself except as a function of the system in which it partakes
— Moliere
This is observably true, not only in technological societies, but in all societies with a rigidly imposed top-down value system, such as monarchies, theocracies and ideological dictatorships. — Vera Mont

***

The main point is that capitalism creates a false sense of freedom while actually taking it away, treating individual identities as products that can be sold. This can lead to a serious decline in both culture and the people who make it.

If this dumbed-down version is correct, then I think it is probably true, up to a point. However, technology and its use has many effects - some are clearly beneficial as an aid to understanding. It is a tool and like any tool, it's only as good as its user. But we already know that, don't we?

***

Finally, I don't mean to disrespect the author but I'm reminded of the Sokal hoax. Now being re-run in research:

Pluckrose, and Boghossian set out to rerun the original hoax, only on a much larger scale. Call it Sokal Squared.

Generally speaking, the journals that fell for Sokal Squared publish respected scholars from respected programs. For example, Gender, Place and Culture, which accepted one of the hoax papers, has in the past months published work from professors at UCLA, Temple, Penn State, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Manchester, and Berlin’s Humboldt University, among many others.

The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:

Other means superior to the natural sciences exist to extract alternative knowledges about stars and enriching astronomy, including ethnography and other social science methodologies, careful examination of the intersection of extant astrologies from around the globe, incorporation of mythological narratives and modern feminist analysis of them, feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance), and direct application of feminist and postcolonial discourses concerning alternative knowledges and cultural narratives.

The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks.
— The Atlantic - What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia

Academic fields are important and mainly to be trusted. However, there is an uncomfortable truth that AI or similar can plug in a hoax re serious subjects like race, gender, sexuality. Crucial topics must be carefully scrutinised and not accepted on face value.

Good, I'm glad!

THE FRAME BEFORE THE QUESTION: AXIOMATIC AND PARSIMONIOUS FOUNDATIONS FOR PHILOSOPHY — Author

The essay presents an axiomatic and parsimonious framework before the question.
What question is being posed? The questions of philosophy?

SYNTHESIS: LIFE IS GOOD - THE AXIOM OF LIFE. — Author

What does this mean? What is it about? What are the implications?
Looking it up, I found a 7page pdf. Downloadable. Here is the Abstract, followed by the Introduction:

This paper presents Synthesis, a descriptive, axiomatic philosophical framework asserting that life is the foundational axiom of all value, encapsulated in the principle "Life = Good." Drawing from evolutionary biology, religious traditions, and systems theory, Synthesis argues that life is the necessary condition for value, inherently drives order and propagation, and acts as the ultimate metric for truth and morality.

Through eight axioms, the framework reinterprets humanity's role as life's agent, evaluates systems by their alignment with life's flourishing, and advocates for adaptive ideologies that resist entropy. Empirical evidence, such as fertility rate disparities, supports the axiom's predictive power.

Synthesis offers a universal lens for philosophy, ethics, and culture, reducing all inquiry to one question: Does it enhance life's continuity and vitality?

This clarity transcends dogma, aligning with life's evolutionary imperative and offering a testable, adaptive framework for evaluating all systems.

Introduction

Problem Statement

Philosophical and ethical systems often lack a universal, objective foundation, leading to
endless debates over morality, truth, and purpose.

Research Questions

● What is the foundational axiom from which all value can be assessed?
● How does life’s drive for order and propagation shape its role as the axiom of value?
● How can systems (philosophical, religious, cultural) be evaluated using this axiom?

Research Purpose
This paper aims to establish “Life = Good” as the universal axiom for assessing value, demonstrate life’s drive for order as its operational mechanism, and evaluate systems by their alignment with life’s flourishing.

Background and Rationale
Traditional philosophy and religion often root value in abstract concepts (e.g., God,
reason), yet fail to provide a testable metric. Synthesis grounds value in life itself, offering a
framework that unifies disparate systems under one principle: life’s persistence and flourishing..
— Synthesis - Life is Good: The Axion for All Value - Academia.edu

This is more substantive than the essay but it seems to run along similar lines.
Meat on the bones of the framework. There is a comprehensive Literature Review. With examples of the 8 axioms. Finally:

Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Summary
Synthesis establishes life as the ontological condition for all value - its sole frame and filter. Without life, there is no perception, preference, or pursuit. Life’s structural drive toward order, continuity, and propagation naturally selects against systems that undermine it. This framework is purely descriptive: it does not prescribe what should be, but explains what necessarily is.
All systems - philosophical, technological, or cultural - are evaluated by a single,
structural question: Does this enhance life’s continuity and vitality?

Conclusion
The axiom “Life = Good” reframes ethics, philosophy, and social inquiry under a single, unifying condition: the structural necessity of life for value itself. This is not conjecture - it is ontological clarity. Synthesis offers a testable, recursive model through which all systems can be evaluated. If they serve life, they persist. If they resist life, they end. Synthesis offers the axiom for all value: life itself.

Recommendations
Future work should apply the Synthesis framework to critical frontiers - especially AI, biotechnology, and policy design - ensuring that emerging systems align with life’s flourishing.
Philosophers, ethicists, and lawmakers should adopt life-centric criteria in education, governance, and social architecture, affirming Synthesis as a practical compass for adaptive civilisation.

As to whether you 'enjoy the sun and breeze', I should hope so, and good for you, but the OP has raised a philosophical question and that's what I responded to. — Wayfarer

Well, indeed. Philosophy reins.

the mind is navigating via conceptual acts that I don't believe are reducible to material or physical states. — Wayfarer

I think you are correct up to a point. I always imagine the mind like a spider's web, each strand sparking another. Synapses and neurones come to mind. Hah!
But sparks still require some underlying substance, no? Brain stuff.
I don't know. I just hope that the bright sparks continue to shine...

So I'd turn the OP title upside down - material reality is actually an aspect of cognitive experience. Whatever we think or know is real occurs to us within experience. — Wayfarer

Thank you. That seems to make sense. I don't see any problem with that. If we weren't here in body and mind, experiencing the world with as many senses available to us, then what would there be to think of?

What might pure thought devoid of input from the five senses consist of?
— Author

Pure mathematics would come close, wouldn't it? — Wayfarer

I don't know anything about the purity of maths. However, I imagine it to involve human activity or perception. This would entail input from the world. Joined with mental concepts?

Aside from that, there are states known to contemplatives that are devoid of sensory content - known as 'contentless consciousness' in some lexicons. — Wayfarer

That is something I have never experienced and can't really imagine. I would think to be conscious entails awareness of self and surroundings. Therefore, there are contents.

How would you know if there was no content to remember?

A dreamless sleep. The depth of anaesthesia. Hmmm...but if 'out of it' then we don't know what external stimulus our unconscious is reacting to? We are still alive. So conscious in some respect or level.

What does all of this matter?

Conclusions
The presence or absence of content-less state of consciousness has important implications for theories of consciousness (Metzinger, 2019). Many current conceptions of consciousness do not consider a content-less state of consciousness as a possibility and would need to be significantly altered if such a state is possible. We need novel paradigms to study and theorize about such states of consciousness without content or minimal phenomenal experience. A thorough understanding of the phenomenal properties of consciousness and its links to functional or neurophysiological aspects would enable us build a comprehensive theory of consciousness (Josipovic and Miskovic, 2020; Metzinger, 2020). The current paper suggests that focusing on the continuity of conscious experience may necessitate proposing consciousness without content a theoretical necessity. Such states of consciousness have been reported for a long time among practitioners in various contemplative traditions and there is a need to take them seriously to eventually understand consciousness. It also seems to be the case that realizing such an experiential state seem to change one’s life in a significant manner. Hence there is also a need to measure the impact of having experienced such a state in day to day life of those practitioners. — Consciousness Without Content - Frontiers

So much for theories.
I'm inclined to be sceptical. The mind is powerful and it can trick us into holding certain beliefs.
Any change can depend on an internal or external agent. Like chemicals. Natural or otherwise.
Clearly, I am not a student of Consciousness. It is fascinating but so is reality. And simple experience.
Like turning off the laptop to enjoy the sun and breeze.

Aw, come on. Say something. Not just provide another wall of text, huh?

One main problem with this essay on the forum is that it is an area so hotly debated within philosophy. It is rather unfortunate that it is onsite while the thread on 'what is reality? is going so strongly. This may mean that hardly anyone will read it all, because that thread has grown so long. To say less or more about the idea of reality is the question? — Jack Cummins

I don't see what the problem is. The essay stands on it own, alongside 12 others.
If there is a hot debate on the issue, then that's fine. It is the author's perspective.
I, for one, have not been following a thread on 'what is reality?'. No matter how long it has become.

Your concern is not well-founded. IMO. Readers can be drawn to what appeals or is new or even strange to them. But we are all, sometimes, limited by time and energy.

What is important is that the author took time to write and share. That can take a certain amount of courage. To do one's best is to grow, no?

To take part in this event is a reward unto itself! :wink:

OK. :lol:
Thanks for trying. It's not really worth the bother, is it?! But I will use 'Author' in future, even if it disturbs Moliere. He can take it!

Edit: I did get the notification.

I am surprised that this well written essay has not received attention. — Jack Cummins

For me, it seemed to be an extension or continuation of a TPF thread. The participants revealed as @ucarr and @philosch. The links take you to: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974795

It's now clear to me that going forward from here, it will be impossible to continue my argument without stepping into the bog of the “Material Vs Non-Material Debate. — Author

The essay looks to have been written by ucarr?

Either way, there are 13 essays in this event. This is on my decreasing list of those still to be read.
Responding to each one takes time. This is only the 7th June. The event started on the 1st.

Back to the essay, while I don't subscribe to materialism generally, I think that the essay is written so well that I do find the argument within it to be strongly supported and worth reflecting upon. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps you could expand on this. Perhaps choose a pertinent quote to support your assessment?
What will you be reflecting on?

Really?! Och, Jings Almighty. Whatever can be done... :worry:

That’s right, the numeric code after the semicolon points back to the post. — Author

Got it.

So, there ya go. 'Moliere' can now be replaced by 'Author'. I like it! :up:

:cool: :up:
You have a way with words!
Edit: I think you could say more, no? @Jack Cummins

Yes, that is true. But that only happens when the blue link (name) is activated, no? When you leave it simply as a nameless quote that doesn't happen, does it?

Not quoting @Moliere.

Hello. Apologies. For years now, in the Literary Event and now here, I have included quotes from the story/essay. Fair enough. However, it is the name of the host e.g. Baden, Noble Dust and now, Moliere that appears. You must all have received notifications. Every time. How annoying. For both you and the authors.

Today, I realised that I could edit and remove the name until all that is left is 'quote' at the beginning.
The word quote inside [ ].
There is no doubt a better, quicker way to use the quote system? So that it jumps back to the point in the essay...

Note: Because this paper has a large number of footnotes and end notes a PDF file has been made available. A longer version of the paper covering through the end of the Paradiso, with more discussion, can be found here.

Thanks to the author and Moliere. I've now downloaded the short and the long of it. I note access is only for a week?

I now understand why they were not included in the original presentation.
The depth of reading and careful explanation is astounding. To share all of this in a TPF event is most generous and gracious. I expect it will be published elsewhere. Exceptional :100: :sparkle:

Well, therein lies the fun of it, no? :wink:
It is thought-provoking. Stimulating and...frustrating...

I agree that in-text citations are useful. However, during initial discussions as to essay requirements for this event, it was decided that such were not essential. There were no stringent requirements. This was to encourage philosophy writing in the broader sense. As far as I recall. @Moliere ?

I am confused as to what is meant by 'Radical Individualism' especially in relation to Nozick? — I like sushi

I understand your confusion. I am still unsure. This essay needs to be read several times. To see the connections. However, the author describes his interpretation of 'Radical Individualism', starting here:

1. Radical Individualism: Core observations
The political and cultural individualism of Musk, Trump and Peterson follows a script rooted in Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. In Anarchy, State and Utopia Nozick defends a minimal state limited to protecting property and voluntary exchange, rejecting any patterned or redistributive justice. For Nozick, justice depends not on outcomes but on whether transactions are procedurally uncoerced.

This model, often adopted implicitly, informs much of today’s radical individualism. The typology below outlines key elements of this view:...

***
In an earlier post, I introduced the issue from psychology: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992326

— Is Radical Individualism Destroying Our Moral Compass - Psychology Today — Amity

I searched for more on Radical Individualism and found an interesting pdf essay. I was slow to realise that it was from a Christian perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to be a careful examination of 'Individualism & Radical Freedom' by Dr. Gordon Carkner. I don't know enough to ascertain if the author has the best understanding.

From p1/18:

...Freedom, in Foucauldian language, is an ontological ground of ethics; freedom becomes the starting point, the norm and framework, the very goal of ethics, its alpha and omega. Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, with whom I place Foucault in critical dialogue, offers a critique of this radical notion of freedom; the two premier philosophers make excellent interlocutors. — ubcgcu.org

From the Conclusion, p11:

...it is quite evident that freedom is one of the values most appealed to in Western identity.
But Taylor wants to caution us, to call this into question and ask us to move away from a radical freedom as self-determination or self-sufficiency and toward a situated freedom of interdependence where he believes we can recover a healthier understanding of self in a larger and richer context. Complete freedom is absurd; it seeks to escape all historical-cultural situation and narrative. Pure freedom without limits is nothing; it has no context; it is chaos, destructive; it is no place, a void in which nothing would be worth doing.6 It is often abused. Foucault’s view of freedom, although attractive for its pioneering spirit and some of its tools for creative self articulation, is quite vulnerable to manipulation (a precarious autonomy); it is both exhilarating and dangerous. This empty freedom hollows out the self and can be filled with almost any moral trajectory or motive, whether constructive or destructive: community development or pure self indulgence, compassionate healing or violence, character development or self-trivialization, militarism or peace-making, philanthropy or a Ponsi scheme. — As above

* There is a useful Reading List at the end of this essay. Taylor and Foucault are referenced in Section 3.
(Taylor 3.1.1 and Foucault in 3.3 and 3.3.2):

3. What Kind of Individualism Are We Talking About?
The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern. — Moliere

*

Reading list:
Isaiah Berlin – Two Concepts of Liberty
Hegel – Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Hannah Arendt – The Human Condition and In Between Past and Future
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Judith Butler – Precarious Life; The Psychic Life of Power
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1
Karl Marx – Capital Vol. 1
Robert Nozick – Anarchy, State and Utopia — Moliere

This TPF Challenge is all about philosophy writing in its various forms. It is based on the idea that philosophy is for all, not just for those in formal academia. Philosophy concerns individuals asking questions, observing, thinking, reading, listening...within a wide spectrum of ideas, ideologies and beliefs. There are subfields within categories and within each branch there are competing schools promoting different theories. There are different methods and ways of thinking.

So, the traditional academic philosophy formal argumentative essay is not given supreme status.
This has been discussed previously in the build-up to this June event.

Here, we are engaged in ideas of philosophy and writers with diverse themes, interests and experience. We can read and value philosophy without the need for complex and convoluted arguments. The 'essays' are in the sense of attempts at writing. To enlighten both the author and the reader in a kind of dance. The showing or telling of an idea shared and questioned with intelligence and humour. Dialogue.

There is an appreciation of the time and energy expended by each partner in the to and fro.
Hopefully, without stepping on too many toes. But, even then, we learn by our mistakes.
It takes inspiration and perspiration. Perseverance in the midst of frustration. Finding the right words to express feelings and thoughts.

Imagination and creativity are central. Not the parroting of old texts by rote for the purpose of passing exams. Not thumping people over the head in another kind of narrow 'religion'. It is climbing out of the box of rigidity to flex your mental muscle. To shake off the dust, put on your red shoes and dance the blues.

Philosophy is found in music and novels. Arguably, philosophers convey their ideas better when released from the confines of the status quo. Or academic expectations.
We can better relate to deeply profound philosophical themes when not trudging through complex argumentation.
When stories include intriguing or funny characters. Like Bubbles and Styx:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15992/tpf-essay-bubbles-and-styx-in-pondering-the-past

I think of Camus' philosophy essay 'The Myth of Sisyphus' and compare it to his accompanying novel The Stranger. And then witness his progress in the writing of 'The Plague'.
Existentialism and absurdism are about the meaning or lack of it in life.
This is argued for in philosophy but its personal meaning becomes clear and relevant in other writings.
It is no longer dry theory but a sharing of life experience.

I would question the figures being focused on to some degree, because I think it obscures how the issues raised here are topics of open debate within the Right. These aren't really intellectuals we would expect to have coherent platforms. Two of the figures have had quite public struggles with drug addiction and difficulties coping with wealth and fame, of the sort that obviously tends to lead to incoherence. They also interact heavily through social media, and I have found that social media tends to make even otherwise quite sensible figures say very silly things on a regular basis. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't question the figures as presented by the author. They are highly pertinent regarding 'the theatrical pose' of radical individualism. As such, they don't need to be 'intellectuals' with 'coherent platforms'.
Their interaction with the public via social media is central to their power. This is what people see and hear on a regular, almost addictive, basis.

They are prime examples, immediately recognised globally. They are known. They fit the bill perfectly.
I read again to remind and reinforce my understanding of this essay:

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense

This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom. By examining its philosophical roots and public champions we expose a paradox at its core: the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means.

We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. Though differing in style and domain all present the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. Yet each depends on immense institutional power. Musk benefits from public subsidies and corporate scale, Trump commands state machinery and nationalist rhetoric, Peterson draws authority from platforms and institutional critique. — Moliere

The figures are all about image. The picture of success and strength. Virility, potency, manliness.
Domination of weaker minorities. Who hail freedom, yet deny it to others.

4. No One Is an Island, Not Even A Libertarian
Radical individualism offers a seductive vision. It promises a world without interference, where each person is the sole author of their fate, untouched by history, insulated from obligation and immune to the needs of others. It is, at first glance, a philosophy of dignity and moral clarity. A defence of the self against the claims of society.

But it is also, fundamentally, a myth. And more dangerously, a myth that rationalizes inequality, conceals power and undermines the very conditions of freedom it claims to protect. — Moliere

Yes. A dangerous myth. How to change the narrative?

There is no morality when lies abound. When people in power talk about protection, our ears should prick up. Security at what cost? Prisons full of 'traitors', those who dare challenge the person in charge.
A person so full of personal insecurity, he rages against his 'distorted' portrayal.
Typically, he attacks the female artist:

The presidential portrait, which has been displayed in the Colorado capitol since 2019, was created by Colorado Springs artist Sarah A Boardman, known for her work on portraits of several US presidents, including Barack Obama and George W Bush.

"The artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst," Mr Trump said."She must have lost her talent as she got older."

Ms Boardman told The Denver Post in 2019 that it was important to her that both men look apolitical because the gallery of presidents is about the story of the nation and not one president.

"In today's environment it's all very up-front, but in another five, 10, 15 years he will be another president on the wall," she said.
"And he needs to look neutral." — Trump calls for removal of portrait - ABC News

Ah, 'neutral' is not his style. Look at the one he prefers. His mugshot as criminal, hung on a golden frame, just outside the Oval Office. Just 'another president on the wall'.

If we want to change the political narrative, we need better images, no?

Returning to this section:

3.3 The Ideological Mask of Radical Individualism — Moliere

I've been thinking about the political use of 'common sense'. Its appeal to the common people. Individuals who know what they know and are happy with that. What they know is what is best for them.
They look to whoever will best serve their interests or appeals to their taste. What you see is what you get. Right? No.

In the video I included about wind power, supporters see Trump in full rant mode about 1,000s of birds killed by windmills, their carcasses littering their lawns or backyards.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992326
He is a powerful presenter of images, bigly and badly but also Godly/goodly.
Trump can do whatever he likes, so can his supporters. That's the common sense of the self-interested.

Yes, it 'flatters the ego but fails the world'. Freedom serves the good and the bad.

This essay resonates with me. I've been looking here:

2.2 Liberty Through Coercion
Trump’s trade war illustrates liberty asserted through force. Tariffs and trade barriers, classic interventions, are reframed as tools of sovereignty and pride. That self-described libertarians embrace them shows how flexible freedom becomes. What matters is not principle but the actor. Coercion becomes liberty if used by the right person. Hierarchy is acceptable if it matches their ideals. — Moliere

The actor is central. Not only in terms of agency but drama. The imagery of a God-like warrior fighting to secure peace, not war...how real is that? It is based on the fear of insecurity, the need for more land to gain riches to promote strength. A military base. To buy or plunder. Trump's Golden Globe.
The Supreme Scared Bully. Freedom is granted to those who curry favour and are of the right colour, creed and gender.

3.5 The Social is Not a Trap
A core premise of radical individualism is that social structures constrain freedom. Institutions are seen as cages, norms as impositions and collective life as a threat to autonomy. The sovereign individual is imagined as most free when most detached. But this view reverses the truth. The social world does not obstruct freedom. It enables it. — Moliere

Very well said. There is always the reversal. The projected fears of the selfish, self-serving who do care but not, necessarily, to share. Unless it is in their interests. Common sense.
If they do not know or understand the reasons for preventive health, homelessness, criminalised - they are limited. But still free to think what they like. Based on emotions of anger at the other. MAGA. But which America? What constitutes 'greatness'?
Trump stokes the great fires of hatred. Divide and conquer. It was ever thus.

3.5.3 The Myth of the Outside
Radical individualism suggests there is an outside to society where true autonomy lives. But no such space exists. Even the most independent person depends on shared language, inherited norms, tools and the labour of others. The dream of pure autonomy feeds on the very structures it denies.

Musk relies on public infrastructure and scientific tradition. Trump’s populism runs on legal and bureaucratic tools.Peterson’s critiques emerge from academic and media networks. The self-made man is always socially produced.

This denial of interdependence has political effects. It breeds isolation and mistrust. Solidarity becomes suspect. Institutions lose legitimacy and are easier to dismantle. What replaces them is often private and unaccountable power disguised as liberty. — Moliere

Populism

In the United States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021). — Britannica - Populism

Trump, the criminal, is a hero to many. Re-elected, his power has increased. He has extended his image of himself as a divine being. He is holier than the Pope. It is no joke. He has delusions of grandeur. See his AI image:

US President Donald Trump has attracted criticism from some Catholics after posting an AI-generated image of himself as the Pope.

The picture, which was shared by official White House social media accounts, comes as Catholics mourn the death of Pope Francis, who died on 21 April, and prepare to choose the next pontiff.
The New York State Catholic Conference accused Trump of mocking the faith. The post comes days after he joked to media: "I'd like to be Pope." — BBC - Trump's AI Image of himself as Pope

Some people in America bask in his Divine Glory.
In God We Trust. Stamped on coins. Stash'n'Cash. Freedom. Signed, Sealed, Delivered.
Next up, 'In Trump We Trust' ? He has a propensity for re-naming, making the world all about him.

What we need is a different conception of freedom. One that acknowledges our interdependence, values solidarity and invests in the public institutions that enable each of us to act meaningfully in the world. This is not a call for collectivist uniformity or authoritarian oversight. It is a call for participatory, responsive and just institutions. In other words, more democracy everywhere that recognize the individual not as an island but as a node in a shared and fragile network of life...

When radical individualism is taken at face value, the result isn’t a flourishing of liberty but the quiet dismantling of its conditions: public goods erode, solidarities fray and those most in need are told their suffering is a personal failure, not a systemic injustice. It breeds cynicism toward democracy and opens the door for authoritarian figures to redefine freedom as obedience to themselves. What begins as a philosophy of personal sovereignty ends in the normalisation of power without accountability. — Moliere

Yes. I think that most careful observers can see that. Some call it the dismantling of America.
But this conservative view of individual failure requiring state assistance is prevalent elsewhere.
Yes. We can see how global authoritarian figures capture the imagination, stir the populace with rhetoric and fear. Eternal wars.

The victims or survivors may well live in hope of a better world. But this is not enough. They do not need to be persuaded by a philosophy essay or treatise. Theoretical concepts are of no use. They are written in seas of sand. Shifting shape as the wind blows.

There is a need to harness power at ground level. To rise like the Phoenix...but how...
Does it need one powerful, political actor or many with radical agency.
Radical: not extremism but fundamental, far-reaching diligence in quality of progressive care.
First, knowledge, then understanding. Working with and from reality as experienced.
Opening eyes and ears...look in, out, up and around...but don't get too dizzy...

I hope all authors are being patient. There's a whole world of reading in this event. It's only the 4th.
— Amity

Agreed. I'm having to do some slow, careful work here, but it's worth every minute. — Vera Mont

Yes, I value the whole process. Being involved and learning other perspectives. Challenging my thoughts. I have a few essays left but as far as me contributing anything worthwhile or otherwise. Hmmm.
Not so hot on Wittgenstein but he seems to have an appeal :wink:

I've enjoyed reading responses to this well-structured, substantial argument.
Scrolling down, I read about 'common sense' as an ideology and immediately thought of Trump:

3.3 The Ideological Mask of Radical Individualism

Radical individualism often presents itself as ideologically neutral. It does not claim a tradition or worldview but instead appeals to what seems natural, original or self-evident. It invokes intuition, common sense or the sanctity of the individual as if these were beyond history or politics. But this appearance of neutrality is itself ideological. It hides assumptions about power, value and order behind a language of purity and noninterference. By ideology, we mean both the structural misrepresentation of power relations, as in Marx, and the subtle production of subjectivity through discourse and normativity, as explored by Foucault and Butler. — Moliere

[emphasis added]

There are more than a few examples of Trump's appeal to 'common sense' as opposed to scientific evidence for political decision-making. It can be harmful and ridiculous. I noticed it first in 2012 when Trump's fury knew no bounds:

In Scotland, he challenged the planning permission for windfarms in sight of his multi-million pound golf development, near Aberdeen. Not only would the turbines spoil the view but he claimed that Scotland was committing "financial suicide" by building them.

The businessman told the inquiry wind farms were inefficient, could not operate without big subsides, "killed massive amounts of wildlife" and would damage tourism.

When challenged to provide statistical evidence for his arguments, Mr Trump told the committee in April: "I am the evidence", adding: "I am considered a world-class expert in tourism, so when you say, 'where is the expert and where is the evidence', I'm the evidence." — BBC News

See embedded clip (00.31).

Mr. Trump proceeded to make a series of legal challenges, right up to the UK's Supreme Court where
he failed in his efforts. That was then, what about now?
Trump's antipathy to the harnessing of wind power continues.
'I never understood wind' - a Trump tirade

Now, he is President Trump and bigly transactional, employing the threat of tariffs world-wide. To pursue his own agenda, increase his power and riches with the slogan "Drill, baby, drill!"

Donald Trump has made a fresh call for the North Sea to be opened up to more oil drilling and for an end to "unsightly" windfarms.
The US President, a long-term critic of renewable energy, claimed there was "a century of drilling left" in Scottish waters and called for the UK Government to incentivise more production.
Trump recently signed the first stage of a UK-US trade deal with Keir Starmer, which reduces tariffs on certain exports.
In a social media post, the President said: "Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all.

"Working out well for all"? Really? At what cost? For whose benefit?

Back to common sense as an ideology:

It’s “the revolution of common sense,” President Donald Trump announced in his second inaugural address.

And so it is. The latest installment of that assertion came in his Jan. 30, 2025, press conference about the Potomac plane crash. When asked how he had concluded that diversity policies were responsible for a crash that was still under investigation, Trump responded, “Because I have common sense, OK?”
— The Conversation

Embedded video - see 01.34 of 02.49 clip.

And that is only the tip of a fast-melting ice-berg.

***

I look forward to examining more of this powerful essay and how:

It methodically dismantles a mindset that, though many of us intuitively see as incoherent and unsupportable, continues to be a dominant force in modern life. — Baden

The conclusion is compelling:

Real freedom is not the absence of others. It is the presence of shared conditions in which dignity, voice and action become possible. It is built not in retreat but in relationship. If we continue to treat liberty as a solitary performance rather than a shared foundation, we will not only mistake inequality for merit but we will also hollow out democracy itself. The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox is not just an intellectual contradiction; it is a political danger. One we must name clearly and confront together. — Moliere

A strong call to name what is wrong before we can rectify the erosion of rights. The melting of morals.
The paradox is also explained here:

But this leads to what might be called the Great Contradiction of contemporary moral life. On the one hand, we believe in the right of people to pursue their own versions of happiness; on the other hand, the fact that something is freely chosen does not make it good, worthy, or right. If we all have the right to our own personal morality, then "the right to choose freely" easily degenerates into "If it's freely chosen, then it's all right."

Individual rights are essential for a free society. However, they are insufficient for a free and moral society. As free citizens, we need to rethink our commitment to a narrow conception of moral life. There is more to moral life than our claims to our rights. A moral society cannot sustain itself without the absence of a quest toward some shared sense of virtue, goodness, caring, and so forth. To become a truly moral society, we must seek to identify, negotiate, and coordinate the values and virtues that define how we should act, who we should be, and how we should live. — Is Radical Individualism Destroying Our Moral Compass - Psychology Today

Similar conclusions but, as always, light on detailed action.
The How of the matter. Ask and ye shall receive?

But we, as political agents and moral interlocutors, can resist the spectacle and demand something better: institutions worthy of trust, freedom grounded in solidarity and agency rooted in interdependence. — Moliere

I agree with this in general. However, in the face of eternal global wars, this seems more than a little idealistic. Solidarity struggles daily, hourly, every second a damning atrocity.
People are fighting for their very lives, survival - free to bite the hands off others for sustenance.

EDIT: On the other hand, only two participants have ever shown any concern about getting their work published (me and hyper) and it is otherwise assumed that posts on TPF will be public. — Jamal

Oh, and you were doing so well. I almost gave you a :up:

I don't know if the potential publishers of philosophical essays apply the same exclusivity criteria as many of the fiction magazines do. From my very cursory research, they seem to be more permissive, meaning that if someone wanted to get their essay published, for example on Aeon, it might still be possible.

If anyone is thinking of doing that they should speak up and I'll do what needs to be done — Jamal

Thank you. I think it would be good to clarify for future events. Perhaps, publication issues/ criteria to be included in the Guidance? To warn potential posters of potential or real problems? Or to reassure.

Not everyone will read your advice and reassurance in this post. And best done by PM, if they do.
I'm curious. What, exactly, would need to be done by you?

As it is, most if not all participants would have assumed the essays were going to be viewable to non-members, since that is always the default on TPF and discussion forums generally. — Jamal

Perhaps so. But any participants, who have followed your previous policy of privacy under the Symposium, are just as likely to have assumed that to be the status quo. The need for you to have been able to publish elsewhere applicable to everyone and to philosophy essays.

Yeah, I got that already, thanks. I meant from a publisher's point of view and any rules that would prohibit an essay if it was already published on TPF.

If someone submitted under the expectation that they would be private and therefore publishable, that strikes me as a better reason than anything to the contrary. — Leontiskos

I have moved on to reading and commenting on the essays. More than a few are exceptional. Excellent and publishable. One could even be the start of a series. The illustrated adventures of...

So, yes, the issue of publication still bothers me. Not for me personally!
But I received no response from @Jamal to this:

I complained of the change to 'private' and the need to sign in to read them. I remember well your reasons and wonder if /why this is no longer a concern. — Amity

What has changed regarding keeping essays or stories private for the sake of publication?

Part 1 & Part 2

Parts of what? A poet's philosophical perspective of life, the universe and everything. Described as an:

Original Philosophical Investigation series — Author

The explorer has returned from his bold journey, where no man has gone before. It is unique.
The terrain is shared, the tale told in a tavern - The Orion Arms, 42 Milky Way, The Universe.
Imagine that. The prologue sets the scene.

Here we go… — Author

Allons-y!
But not so fast. Where's the map? Ah, the 8 stages, or stations, are set out. Hold on. Where does Part 1 start and the other begin or end? [I've edited it to clarify] A quick scan reveals the layout of the land. Is this to be a Treasure Island? Where is the gold buried? Is there a pot at the end of the rainbow?

I believe gems are to be found along the way. In the poem, long and hard, rewarding for some...depending on patience, a squinted eye, fragments of a pointed impression. Zoom in and out.

It is up to the reader to find their own way of reading. I suggest this is a piece you can dip into, stay a while at any station, pass by the more analytical Part 1 to a more relaxed conclusion. The sleuth-hounds have untangled the yarn. The search is over. We knit the knits and purl the purls.
From the added Stage 9 - What are the feelings of the seasons?
Conclusion

At last comes winter with its gift of peace,
As nature’s frenzy finds its sweet release;
The busy world slows down to take its rest,
While snow’s white silence bids all striving cease.

Beneath the frost, life dreams in quiet deep,
As roots and seeds their hidden wisdom keep;
This too’s a bounty—time to pause and mend,
As nature shows us beauty’s quiet sleep.

At the start of Stage 9 (18 4-line verses) the author sets out his aim.

Prelude:
Explain the feelings of Spring Fever, Summer Joy, Autumn Color, and Winter Rest.

This is the format most of the way through. A quick look at the titles, intro and conclusion of each stage will help you decide if the main is to your taste.

The map or outline:

PART 1
(1) On Human Being.

(2) The Extreme Humungousness of the Universe
As an Impossible Recipe.
Later changed to:
The Impossible Recipe?
A Dialog About the Universe’s Free Lunch

(3) Of Dreams Night and Day
(4) Dancer or the Danced Upon?

PART 2
(5) When a Tree Falls in the Forest

(6) Religion’s Restraint
I added the aim and conclusion as an example. Excellent!
[Aim: Show how religion holds us back
Concluding:
The riddle stands: why plant forbidden trees,
Then punish those who follow nature’s keys?
Why give us wings, then clip them when we fly,
Or grant us sight, then scold us when we see? ]

(7) Unfree Will
(8) Time and its Blast
(9) What are the Feelings of the Seasons?

***
For me, the initial stage was the most difficult to traverse in my bouncy space-shuttle.
The author's objective:

A kind of pyramid is envisioned, with two oppositionals and two transitionals that cross to generate the humans’ being, via this and additional pairings of necessity derived that are basic, not complicated.

Many questions of matter, time and space, when, where etc. crisscross and merge in my mind as total confusion. Perhaps, that's the idea. Perhaps, a diagram would help.
Anyway, I hope this snapshot has been of value to the author and any other passing detective.
I could murder a beer at the Orion Arms :party:

Edit to add:
This is too long, well over the 5,000 word limit. (approx. 5,810)
It also looks like a number of previous pieces stuck together with individual aims and conclusions.
Edited - well, yes, :roll: there is a big clue at the start:

Original Philosophical Investigation series — Author

I think it would be a clearer, more coherent philosophy piece with a solid introduction and conclusion. Also, a mix of prose and poetry would provide the reader some ease. Just my thoughts. It's too much. The enormity and strangeness can overwhelm. But then, what's wrong with that, if it makes you think and feel and wonder...

There is no doubting your creative spirit and passion. Never ending imagination and questions and responses in poetry and philosophy. A very fine mix. Thank you for sharing.
I decided to go with the flow, not to analyse, swim in the space and not mind the gaps in understanding.