Rules are created by the intellect for the characterisations they make, for what exists and how to describe what exists. Solipsism is established by rules which function without being in accordance with reality, they function and are as the intellect perceives them to be or not be valid. Solipsism is argued for and against using rules, which can be flicked away by the intellect because rules do not require anything to function except the intellect finding them satisfactory. This notion of discovering a truth here is misguided, at least assert yourself for a purpose that does something more than defining a pointless resolve.

I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet.

Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way.

I think disagreement for the sake of disagreement, proving someone wrong, asserting your views as correct is nearly pointless as anything except as something found entertaining. I want to communicate the reasons for my belief in my idea and then examine these reasons with someone else or help someone else do the same. That allows my differences with others to be beneficial as opposed to just endless conflict. Also, I think that rather than calling people stupid, irrational, senseless or whatever, we should be more careful in how we disagree. When we label disagreement in ways that recognise our immutable or irreconcilable differences, I think acceptance comes easier than if we label disagreement as the deficiency or inadequacy of the other.

Secondly, I think seeing this problem helped me to recognise that I reached my positions as a result of more than just their truth or correctness, my worldview is not necessarily something to force others to accept. Thus, I can more actively focus on whether my positions are conducive to my success as I define it. I have almost totally lost interest in trying to change other peoples' beliefs in anything, I nearly never succeed or see success. I dislike to see this problem being characterised in solely negative terms, I think we can explain this phenomenon without simplistically labelling others with degrading terms, it's an interesting topic.

Firstly, I find people who are overly excited irritating because they're loquacious, noisy and overbearing, not all the time but especially if I am tired or have other things on my mind. I do think some people bring down overly happy people and I can offer many possible explanations but I wouldn't dare say which are more prevalent than others. I think if you are not a necessarily happy person then:
1) you likely have positive feelings towards negative emotion and negative feelings towards positive emotion
2) you are a naturally negative person

Which makes positive emotion disagreeable both emotionally and intellectually. What I mean by 1) are things like people considering themselves "realists" or critical thinkers or perhaps more mature due to their negativity. Also, seeing too much happiness as evidence of simpleness, ignorance, shallowness and so on. And 2) you just see the bad in things naturally and yes, you tear down happy people but you just tear down everything and there's not necessarily special treatment.

For the mood modifier, I guess it would depend on whether you think you are more likely to be happy or sad (assuming you had to wear it all the time). If I was generally sad then I would use this device, I find this an easy choice but since I'm generally very happy, I wouldn't want it.

I would suggest that meta-ethical relativism (moral relativism) should not be considered necessarily frivolous. You do not need objective morality to advocate for the death penalty of people doing something you can consider abhorrent and you do not need to acquiesce your viewpoint merely because you see morality has no "true" answer. You can be the fiercest, unrelenting thinker on moral issues if you want to be.

There are serious and unforgivable things that other cultures consider okay, you can label them as horrible degenerates, no problem. Personally, I think morality is 100% subjective and has no truth value but I do not accept this as a licence for all actions and views, I don't care what your culture is. I don't think morality functions much different whether you think it's objective or subjective.

I just think we need to be honest and upfront with why morality exists as a force in society and you can explain that without relying on "it's objectively true". Firstly, there's logic/validity/reason/reasonableness.
Secondly, there's fairness, compassion, empathy, love and so on. Anger about these kinds of things is infectious and easy to justify and has an emotive aspect not necessarily present in just saying "God said so" or something.

I just find your descriptions to be objectionable like you say this;

Can we be human without clothing? — Possibility

but who is that even in response to?

Perhaps the reason why people can't answer why clothing is necessary is that there was never any incentive for them to ask themselves this question, they never had a choice anyway. Their compliance is mandatory, their opinions aren't of any relevance to the enforcement of either the law or social convention. However, clearly, the law and social convention are what make clothing necessary and then you can ask "why have they made it necessary?". Which is more of a history question, I suppose, than a philosophical one. Various body parts are considered sexual and therefore inappropriate to show in public, in some of Islam, it seems even just showing a woman's face is too much. I am not familiar with the history on it but I know that laws creating a necessity for clothing in public predate Christianity, I guess one could read up on it if they're interested.

Religion is an example of people reaching different positions through different processes. This a simple problem since it's just a matter of whether you believe in the religious argument and its validity. I am talking about circumstances where we followed the same process but arrived at different positions due to things like our nature/nurture/personal circumstances.

So this could be split into two categories; with error and without error. If someone believes I have made an error (irrational/untrue/etc), they can correct it and if I agree then things are simple enough. Then if we don't disagree, things get complex and I was talking a bit about this in my last post.

As for without error, it is like the example I gave with personality.

I could go on, my point is not to list every way in which we can disagree but to show how we can disagree by just following the same processes. If I recognise my personality influenced me to see as I do and you recognise that your personality influenced you to see as you do and we both recognise that our personalities are partly constructed by factors over which we had no control, how does that change how we should see the subsequent differences in our positions if they were the result of these differences? And replacing personality with the aforementioned categories and more. — Judaka

So through our different personalities, we reach different conclusions but as you know others have different personalities to you and as you know personality can affect one's interpretations, characterisations and beliefs, it should be no surprise to you that this occurs although it can be very difficult to identify. Are there any noteworthy differences in a disagreement that is produced in this way?

I have never encountered an example of someone thinking clothing is necessary. I also have not really encountered anyone saying that the issue of whether clothing should be mandatory is complex. Most people would just say "ew" and that's done and dusted. Sure, some factors like religion make it complex but religion does that with many concepts. Why do you think this is a complex issue and why should people even care?

Would you accept a translation of stance into belief, and influence to conditioning? Thus yours a discussion - in translated terms - of conditioned beliefs? — tim wood

Stance into belief yes, influence to conditioning, I suppose very nurture-orientated thinkers could say that but I wouldn't.

If there's a problem with this, and there is a problem with this, it is that many people are not reasonable. — tim wood

I think you are correct in suggesting that a major means to reconciling the differences in our positions is through reason. Conclusions and understandings can be incorrect, invalid, illogical, unreasonable, lopsided and if there is a correct answer and both parties are agreeable to reason then theoretically it is just a matter of undertaking the process that leads to the correct answer. One problem might be if someone is unwilling or incapable of undertaking this process which leads to the correct answer for whatever reason. Unreasonableness, yes, but if it would be possible to expand on this and upon amassing enough obstacles to or reasons not to undertake this process, could we shift blame away from the "unreasonable individual" and towards the circumstances?

Here's what I can see, most people believe themselves to be logical and reasonable yet are far less likely to label others the same. I think this is what we must contend with and not just in examining others but also examining ourselves. The obvious solution to this just perpetuates the problem which is to say that "I am not part of the problem" and the problem is how others are not reasonable. If I say I am "reasonable" with absolute confidence, this being an important part of my self-image, this being a characterisation which makes me happy and proud, it is not something I am likely to try to tear apart. If you say that you've fairly analysed yourself and the reasonable conclusion is that you are reasonable then wouldn't that only put you in the same position as nearly everyone else? And if I characterised you as unreasonable and you wanted to debate this, how could it be done? Even on a philosophy forum, let alone, in a real-life interaction where such discussion is often difficult to begin and have sufficient time to complete. It is probably the one who classifies themselves as unreasonable who is the most obviously reasonable.

One of the major concepts I tried to introduce in OP is this idea of implications, however, most examples only show the individual is being unreasonable from a debating standpoint. I wonder whether this is the best way to frame the belief though? From a debating standpoint, if my belief in my reasonableness is fueled by ego, I would nonetheless not bring that to a discussion about my reasonableness. I would bias against others and in favour of myself, I would bring a valid argument based on premises which I only arrived at due to these biases. I think it would take you a long time to work through all of these premises, even for a single topic such as whether I am reasonable or not. In summary, we could all agree that a lack of reasonableness is most often the problem, all agree that we ourselves are mostly reasonable and all agree that others are usually the problem. Where would that leave us though? If we are to press on with this issue of "reasonableness" can we do so without merely being part of the problem?

Personally, I'm confident the answer is no.

It is the absolute nothingness which results through death that makes it an equaliser and neither the manner of the death nor the circumstances have any bearing on this effect.

But you are addressing desire here - what I’m referring to is understanding, regardless of law or will. — Possibility

You are missing my point, which is to refute what you said when you said "it's about recognising we can change it", I am addressing desire only to address reality. What else is your point? That views on nakedness aren't part of the laws of the world but just based on culture and preference? Why would that even need to be said?

dichotomising in this way fails to take into account those who enjoy nakedness yet, regardless of laws, would not choose to knowingly subject someone else to an experience of nakedness against their will. — Possibility

Do you mean the nakedness of the nudist or forcing someone to be naked who wanted clothing? If it is the former, then that's how it is already, be naked in your house nobody cares and if it is the latter then I disagree and I never imagined the law would be "you must be naked in public".

Your opinion of the random nudist is showing as a blatant disregard for others - if that were the case, then having a nudist beach available would make little difference to their behaviour. — Possibility

I can't make sense of this statement.

That you see this as an indication of what side of the law they’re on is interesting. — Possibility

It is meaningless to be a nudist if you can be naked in public only in circumstances where you have to be. I am not saying that being a nudist means wanting all laws about the necessity of clothing repealed but obviously, there has to be something, is that not correct?

Let me be specific, there is a choice but the pattern of people choosing to obey the law in this instance is so concrete that this pattern becomes more powerful than the choice. The choice is just an intellectual exercise, the pattern is what makes reality the way it is. You are talking about a form of self-harm which is psychological, economic, social and so on, and we cannot expect this to result in anything except what it has resulted in, people choosing not to self-harm in this way. In other words, the "freedom of choice" here is an inconsequential, insignificant force which accounts for nothing and does nothing except justifying being able to label it "a choice".

And who said I wanted to do anything about it? — Possibility

I was not addressing your desire, I was addressing your claim that "we" could do something about it. Some people would like to repeal certain laws outlawing public nudity and some people want to keep them, thus the "we" becomes a bit silly for me, this is not a helpful way to speak.

I think in individualistic societies like in the West, there's a balance between your freedom and your imposition on others. The key issue here is not whether you should want this freedom but there is an imposition on others, is that a reasonable way of looking at it and which should trump the other? Kevin says he doesn't want to be nude in public or see others nude in public and random nudist says they want to be nude in public and screw Kevin. A nudist beach seems like a compromise to me, you have a designated spot where you can be nude in public without imposing your nudeness on others. I don't feel as if I know enough about the issue to explore it in depth.

Clearly, human beings are fallible. So it is an enormous error to begin philosophizing by seeking an infallible basis for human knowledge, as Descartes did. He, and others, made divine omniscience the paradigm case of human knowing. We are not God, and will never know as God does. Thinking that we do, or ought to, is what I call the Omniscience Fallacy. Not only are we subject to errors of judgement, but our brains can only maintain 5-9 “chunks” of information in working memory. — Dfpolis

I'm an atheist but I find your invocation of God here something which should be understandable to anyone, it is a basic point. I was recently discussing an idea about how "truth is arranged" which suggests that we process an already incomplete picture and personalise it by interpreting, emphasising, characterising and narrativising until we end up with something workable. So if you ask me "what do you think about X", my answer will be necessarily personal due to these aforementioned factors. Honestly, I would argue God would arrange truth as well although he would have full knowledge, I wonder if you might argue differently though?

I think that we deal with an intellectualised version of reality, which is mostly based on rulesets which function epistemologically but do not fall apart regardless of it corresponds with reality. I think we should aim to be logical, rational, reasonable and not purposefully deal in falsehood but just looking at language, we can see how I can describe things and there is no epistemic counterforce. What we really deal with is the consequence in practicality and things are categorised and characterised by oftentimes abstract divisions. I think when something works well to help us to navigate a complex issue and it is useful then that should be sufficient.

I do not think it would be correct. Deleuze and Guattari distinguish between two kinds of money: ‘money of the wage earner’, money of payment, and “money of the enterprise and banks”, money of financing. Likely, you refer to the first kind. — Number2018

When I say "capitalistic" I am using the term similar to how Lacan used the term, to refer to the culture of capitalism. The "capitalistic arrangement" is a set of truths, various narratives, characterisations, emphasising various points which are invoked by one talking as if this indescribable arrangement were true or valid. So it likely does not emphasise the poverty rates in America, for example, yeah it's real but that's hardly part of the narrative of the culture created around capitalism. The capitalistic arrangements say "yeah, there's wealth inequality but you can be rich if you work smart and hard" and of course, that's something that many people live and breathe, that mentality. Of course, this is highly debatable, a Marxist would emphasise totally different points about capitalism and have a very different narrative, thus, the arrangement is not only contentious but also an incomplete picture. Thus, I mean that the culture of capitalism is very focused on your ability to earn money and "succeed" as well as spend money and "live good". So I don't disagree with what you've said but I don't believe it is relevant.

Likely, your description can be easily transformed into the abstract diagram — Number2018

The example of the industry of ad production is less contentious because it is a formalised structure and we can evidence our claims. Pretty much with this concept of subjectivities, I did not hear an argument for why this conceptualization is useful I heard, "subjectivities are and we should consider them in our thinking". I feel I can adequately explain the same thing in my own language, without trying to describe some arrangement as a fact. I think I agree with what you are saying, had you said it differently, so if you want to continue to debate the usefulness of the concept of subjectivities then we can but I don't see the point. The description of its utility could make the concept less contentious for me, however, just talking about "subjectivities are" is silly to me and that's mostly what I read in the linked thread.

Secondly, the pressure exerted on the workers can be referred to externally, meanwhile, for the capitalistic subjectivity, we are talking about something far more intellectually interactive.

By the way, you (or anybody else) can easily challenge and refute the model I have proposed. It underlines the inhumane, machinic aspects of the ad production and consumption. — Number2018

All arrangements are constructed in ways that enable them to be easily challenged, it's more of a question of who wants to challenge it and why. There are just different fields and different realities for proving a conclusion true beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know what this has to do with the ad production. From my perspective, we could be talking about politics, morality, culture, worldviews and probably most topics and it would be perfectly fine to be able to talk about the truth besides the truth there. The ad producer only uses the way we think to their advantage. You see the same thing in politics, MAGA right? What does it mean? Who knows but that's not important, it's about how the slogan is processed and activates patriotism. There isn't much sophistication to the slogan but we could be discussing it for a long time and not unravel all of its effects, in many ways, the ad is simpler.

If I thought your model was useful and constructive then I would accept and use it and no matter how many people challenged your arrangement, unless it proved the utility I saw in it is flawed, I wouldn't be interested in hearing about it. However, if that's the difference between your model being something I consider useful and something I reject then what I consider useful is clearly of critical importance to my judgement. Don't get me wrong, I'm stating the obvious, clearly, you consider your model useful or you wouldn't be using it. However, my consideration is clearly biased, it can't be unbiased, honestly, it would be easy for me to convince myself that I see things clearly but I have never thought that someone else could see so clearly, I clearly see their biases. Therefore, even when I can't always spot it, I assume I am just as biased and I know logically this is true. My age, my gender, my personality, upbringing, circumstances, they play a role in my thinking and this can't be avoided. I will not engage in the fantasy that I can remove or transform these effects, even for the purpose of philosophical experimentation.

I think where there's no trial-and-error approach available, we should have very low expectations for our accuracy. What allows great competence and brilliance is failing repetitively and tediously correcting any errors or flaws. You are very smart but this is not how intelligence works, we can not just sit here and imagine how things work and rely on our mutual agreement. What I think you are proposing to do with the capitalistic subjectivity is too complex and there are too many unknowns, I reject it is possible to do a good job and so I don't see the point.

I have been talking about similar concepts on this forum lately, it is interesting to see a different way of explaining it, thanks for your post. I will note how you laid out these concepts and see if there isn't something I can use to improve my own position.

It's not a PF thread without some stupid one-liner from Banno.

They’re not choices laid out for you, sure - but they’re still choices you make, whether you do so consciously, or according to socially constructed concepts you’ve integrated through language and experience (including avoiding threatened punishments). — Possibility

What "choices"? To go to the supermarket naked? It's against the law. What choice are you talking about?

It’s not about whether we want it changed - it’s about recognising that we can change it, and being honest about the real reasons why we don’t want it changed. It’s about evaluating behaviour that defies expectations, not on its deviation from the ‘norm’, but on the extent to which it alleviates/contributes to suffering, through awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in the world. — Possibility

Nono, you cannot reasonably talk about "we" when talking about interactions between humans and their systems. Clothing isn't necessary but it's preferable for most people that things stay the way they are, what are you going to do about it? Talk about "we" when it includes people who do and don't want to challenge these norms? "We" needs to at least be a group within society.

Certainly and that's often what people are buying. Often this is how things work, in politics, morality, religion and such.

Thanks for your response.

I suppose this discussion has become just as much about "the truth besides the truth" which can be seen in the perfume advertisement as it is about how and why the advertisement works at all.
(A) What you say
(B) How you say it
(C) What you mean by what you say

It appears to me that what you are talking about might be considered the upfront truth, what actually happened in the ad. The "truth besides the truth" is looking at how these things, alongside the visual aspect, can be interpreted, characterised, emphasised and processed to create oftentimes predictable responses. We can look at how the audience is processing the truth and predict it based on various nature/nurture influences.

With perfume, many have noted an increase in male consumption in the last few decades, as with many beauty products, the barriers discouraging male consumption are being knocked down. The culture of "masculinity" has changed, thus, how the male audience views perfume has changed and the reverse is true too.

So for a male buying for himself there are questions like
- Does using perfume make me appear feminine?
- Will using perfume as a man provoke positive or negative feelings and remarks?
- How will using perfume affect how others see me? And how I see myself?
And so on.

The ad can specifically target these questions or problems through your suggested facets. The reason for buying the product has a lot to do with how using it makes you feel, how it influences how others perceive you and so on. So the ad can choose a message or simultaneously target both the audience which knows perfume and expects quality and the audience which buys perfume because they're excited about these promised effects.

A figure that comes to my mind is Cristiano Ronaldo, here are some examples of ads featuring him and his brand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp5YgNXvqGU&ab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKrH1e3yLMI&ab

These ads have close to no commentary at all, the entire message is a game of connecting the use of the perfume with happiness, success, masculinity, attractiveness, coolness, being slick and so on. Using Ronaldo's likeability, attractiveness, star status and popularity to further the effect. You want to go buy the perfume to be like Cristiano Ronaldo, to share in some of this awesomeness. Women are going to want you, men are going to compliment you and you are going to shine and succeed. Logically, we know none of this is given to us just by using the perfume but it doesn't really matter though, the truth has become a side concern. The ads are pretty easy to understand, the desired effect on the viewer is quite obvious, I think the success of these ads has interesting implications for understanding how information is processed, what works to motivate us and shows how "the truth" is an ideal, just a component of what motivates and guides us.

The choices you make are forced upon you, your preference for wearing clothing isn't required. Similarly, the types of clothes you wear are often not choices for you to make either, or rather, the consequences for defying expectations are too severe for you to sensibly decide to defy them. The "insistence" on clothing is actually just norms operating seamlessly created by people conforming to and following social rules and the law. Is there a practical incentive for anyone to want this changed?

I understand your point. You mean that my articulation of subjectivities is a subjective construction
itself without an objective grounding. You are right: dismantling and deconstructing of prevailing subjectivities is an act of the creation of a counter-subjectivity. Can it function as a ground for
a shared understanding? — Number2018

When we talk about capitalistic arrangements, we would describe things differently if we tried and all the same problems would apply here as they would with subjectivities. I am not saying that just because the subjectivity is an arrangement, that it's useless, however, a role devoid of consciousness and human experience? I can think of some situations where this is acceptable, such as a job, say with a job of a factory worker and what you can and can't do, how you will be interacted with, what you are supposed to do, is all clearly defined. We could talk about this subjectivity without great dispute, especially in a physical sense like workplace safety, maximising efficiency, reducing mistakes and so on. We could find areas of agreement and disagreement, question our accuracy and come to a place of shared understanding. I have read the linked thread but I still have many questions and concerns.

Despite so many nuances and differences, is it possible to extract and to conceptualize the working arrangement (the truth besides the truth) that stands behind the production of the ad of the perfume? — Number2018

Let us start of by saying that there is a factual perception, there is a real force which exerts its influence and at least part of this force is being consciously activated by the producers of the ad. From the perspective of the producer, there is a strong motivation to find a correlation between the effects of the ad and the success of the ad however this might best be determined. How are the effects of the ad known? I suspect a few methods, firstly by listening to people who have watched the ad describe the effect it had on them, secondly through understanding likely psychological and emotional reactions to possible components of the ad, thirdly through trial and error and the list goes on.

We can assume that the selection pressure on ads based on performance is very high as it is a very competitive field with huge sums of money behind it. To create a better ad than competitors - both for your job within the company and compared to competitors outside, you can not simply imitate, you need to understand why what works works and enhance it in your own production. Competition means you don't care about what you think about your production, which is just a means to an end, what you care about is having success.

The production team is targeting a clear demographic, they know who buys the advertised products and they aim to have the best possible understanding of why. In the perfume example, they have little time and a few goals, first to capture our attention, then to communicate the purpose of the product, what makes it unique and the general explanation. This explanation is enhanced however it can be, whatever makes a good impression. Overtly and subliminally, we are enticed to purchase, consciously and unconsciously.

Each member of the production team of the successful perfume ad may explain their success differently, we could create categories for explanations given by those who wanted to buy the perfume as a result of the ad. A certain percentage said X, a lesser said Z and so on. However, that's only the conscious aspect, only what they're attuned to and perhaps their explanation is incorrect or incomplete. Then we as individual thinkers create an arrangement based on what we know and don't know, what we think is important and isn't important, how else would we do it? How do we know when we've got it right? What are we even trying to do and is it possible to do it?

Does this assemblage organize and manage not just this ad's perception, but also the production and perception of countless other advertisements, maintain consumerism principles, and even affect the ways we see things and interact with others? If so, it would make it reasonable to conceptualize 'capitalistic subjectivity' as one of our beings' essential modii. — Number2018

To what end?

One interesting feature of this discussion is that we know almost nothing about each other. I can't consider your age, gender, experience, culture, social life, education, occupation, worldviews, objectives or much of anything really and the same for you with me. To conceptualise this "capitalistic subjectivity" would have ramifications, which we'd care about as thinkers, across a whole range of topics. I would formulate my ideas using my range of nature/nurture/personal factors and you yours. So if I create a "capitalistic subjectivity" which supports or is a natural component of my worldview should we be surprised? If I create a "capitalistic subjectivity" which is impacted by my biases, circumstances, preferences and such, should we be surprised?

Another thing, is how do we judge that we're correct in our analysis? I think in philosophy, it's hard because how do we know when we've hit the mark? If we were to play, I don't know, a strategy game of some kind such as chess, our first ideas on the best way to play would probably not be good, maybe even very bad. We would continually change our approach until we found success but we can't do that here, how do we resolve this problem? If you agree and I agree on a capitalistic subjectivity, what does that mean for us, our analysis and those who'd disagree with it? In the game, our correct understanding would net us a victory, the results speak to its quality. What's our aim and how do we judge success?

I think for the capitalistic arrangements, we can discuss this without really going into specifics, the details of our similarities and differences in describing them are unbeknownst to us but it's okay because we are really just discussing how it might or must influence conceptually. By addressing the capitalistic arrangements, we are able to take a different approach and I consider this to be very useful. This utility is not undermined by the lack of specificity. However, for the idea of subjectivities, it seems like specificity is necessary for the concept to be useful. I for one, have no confidence to describe it and I refuse to relinquish control of the narrative to the extent that I might address another's explanation of a subjectivity as fact.

I am particularly wary because the OP of that linked thread, Streetlightx, is someone who I suspect uses that concept in totally inappropriate ways and does so with complete ignorance of his involvement in the creation of his views. Why can't a race be a subjectivity? Why not a gender? A disability? Isn't this just streetlightx's method of legitimising his bigotry? This concept is at best to only be used in very specific circumstances, it is more of a potentially useful creative endeavour than a fair and practical way to describe the world. What subjectivity could we create which would be anything but a construction which could be disputed on every level?

I assume that capitalistic subjectivities could be defined as impersonal diagrams and arrangements, unconsciously interiorized and appropriated by concrete individuals. They compose the truth besides the truth of our lives and the social fabric of our society. Likely, the capitalistic apparatuses of capture and extraction of surplus values can successfully function just due to this symbiotic coexistence. — Number2018

Besides this term subjectivities, I think I understand what you are trying to say, which is that capitalistic arrangements inform a way of being in the world which allow us to effortlessly become part of the infrastructure of capitalism. For instance, seeing yourself as a consumer, which you can be because you have money, which allows you to partake in hobbies and self-improvement, which are sold to you by the advertisement. Much of our existence is orientated around the acquiring and spending of money, this process is promoted as the path of the responsible, successful adult. The capitalistic arrangements can be really simply described as various "besides truths" around acquiring and spending money. Our culture embodies these "besides truths" seamlessly and we live resigned to them equally seamlessly and effortlessly. Do you think this is an adequate alternative explanation of what you were saying?

These subjectivities are arrangements and rely on psychologising, characterising, narrativising the role being inhabited or just existing which constitutes the subjectivity. Again, there is no way to bypass the individual's involvement in the creation of an arrangement and its structure is going to always be more or less contentious. There is a difference in what you would include/exclude, describe, emphasise and so on than me and these differences make the resulting description of any "subjectivity" contentious. I don't see a way to resolve this problem. When you refer to the possible subjectivity that is the ad viewer, what is this? An ageless, genderless, experienceless, no nurture, no nature, inhuman abstract thing? Are we to pretend that it makes no difference if the perfume ad is being seen by a man or a woman? If these differences are included then how are they included? And what about how all differences interact with each other?

If you feel it is helpful to bring up this idea of "subjectivity" then there will need to be a discussion about it. I am happy for you to rewrite what you wanted to say without it but while I am open to having my mind changed, I do not like this term and if I am to use it then many questions and problems need to be addressed. I wanted to respond to your comment without addressing the term but I don't think I can.

The fairy example is not a criticism of theism, it is a criticism of agnosticism. A theist's beliefs will not operate as I described. The difference between atheism (or part of it) and agnosticism is "uncertainty" and what do you do with it or how do you characterise it. The agnostic can know there is no proof and that there will be no proof but decided to remain neutral (either side could be correct) while the atheist says (no proof, no reason to believe and thus it is wrong to believe). As far as the agnostic is concerned, what is the difference between God and the fairy? Each is equally impossible to prove or disprove. From that perspective, it is a fair comparison but change fairy with an angel if you want, or God himself doesn't matter. What matters is we can't prove/disprove the claim.

I think the reasonableness which leads to "friendly atheism" and "friendly theism" basically lies in "to each his own". The problem is when that isn't possible, issues such as abortion or gay marriage and that cause friction. Often in philosophy, entire positions are justified or dismantled based on religious belief and that makes things hard too. There comes a time for people where we can't just say "to each his own", you have your moment with global warming and others have theirs with atheism/theism.

Personally, I don't care about whether you believe in God or not but what the belief or non-belief produces. If your beliefs bring you comfort, happiness and encourage you to be kind and generous then great but if it leads you to oppress others or cause you to be anti-science or to have crazy ideas then that's not good. I think that's the attitude of the non-militant and where we can draw the line between civil disagreement and something more serious.

Both atheists and agnostics can agree that we can't prove God doesn't exist and both agree we can't prove God does exist. The difference is what that means, for the atheist, the burden of proof is on the "proving" and if you can't back up the claim that God exists then there's no reason to believe he does. The agnostic says "well, can't prove either way, therefore I haven't made up my mind".

Whether the atheist doesn't believe in God because there's a lack of proof for God or because they believe they can prove there's no God isn't distinguished between in the definition.


So, you would not forgive climate change deniers, their existence does not prove the inadequacy of the argument for climate change. You say "the evidence makes the best case for it". Yet this is often the position of the theist and atheist. You have not answered what the "evidence makes the best case for" and instead simply relied on this notion of "inconclusiveness".

Similarily for political or moral issues, you just won't take a stance because a debate has two sides? That is silly, surely you can agree?

Personally, I think agnosticism is epistemologically flawed, if you really have no idea whether God exists or not after hearing all the evidence then the logical conclusion is atheism. All atheism means here is the equivalent of saying that I maintain a stance of non-belief until being given sufficient evidence to believe.

If I said I conversed with a fairy, would you be uncertain because you could neither prove or disprove the claim or would you ask for proof? In this circumstance, you would likely not even adopt a stance of non-belief but actually you would actively reject the plausibility of my claim. I think here, basically, there are billions of people who do believe I conversed with a fairy and so you hesitate and that's fair but does that logic really hold up upon closer examination?

I just can’t see how one side is built upon invalid arguments if both sides have been so inconclusive in dismissing their opposition’s arguments — DPKING

It seems to me that this is where you're going to get the most disagreement. There are a set of very contentious issues such as global warming where the science is absolutely clear and yet by your definition of inconclusive - it's actually unclear whether there's global warming or not. Since many people still believe it's a hoax, the arguments in favour of global warming existing must be inconclusive? We can't judge the veracity of an argument based on how many people remain unconvinced by it.

The other concept here is validity and one can certainly make valid arguments for either side but what does that actually mean? We have a set of standards for epistemological rationality as an example, making a valid argument using the highest standards creates a powerful argument but what if these standards aren't used? One can make an argument like "better safe than sorry" and it can be a valid one but is that a reasonable attitude? What are the consequences of that kind of logic being applied outside of this context? It becomes silly.

When it comes to reasonableness, we might also ask what does it mean if a belief is correct? There are many concepts that I dislike from Islam but from the perspective of a Muslim, it's God's divine law, not to be challenged by mortals. Even if you hold the position that it's "inconclusive", what does that mean in the real world? You want to both respect Islamic Divine Law as well as think people who disagree are reasonable in doing so? That is a weak position of neutrality and it will certainly be attacked by either or both sides.

Misunderstanding me once is acceptable but to press on even after I clarified that I agreed with you? Yes, it is good that the argument is rational as opposed to irrational but that doesn't make the argument a good one nor does it mean the logic leads to desirable consequences.

We should want to be rational but I can challenge my rational thought without questioning its rationality and this can be done on several levels. — Judaka

In your example, you wouldn't say that the argument was irrational but that it was immoral, cruel, unjust and so on. The third agreement is the last one you get, press me on this again and I'm just ignoring you.

Rational arguments can lead to things that are clearly not good. — creativesoul

I agree but that's that I said.

My aim is not to say that if something is rational then it is good but to say it is good if something is rational. — Judaka

We can promote rationality without agreeing with all rational arguments or thinking they always lead to good results. I agree.

We should want to be rational but I can challenge my rational thought without questioning its rationality and this can be done on several levels. My aim is not to say that if something is rational then it is good but to say it is good if something is rational. We can offer logical definitions for success but just because it's logical, that doesn't make it a good definition. Ultimately, this rabbit hole eventually leads me to nihilism, value does not exist, it is asserted through intellect and their reasons can only be evaluated by an intellect.

We enter into a cyclical pattern, whereby value is asserted by the intellect, which has value asserted by the intellect, which has value asserted by the intellect and so on.

Can it be the effectiveness of one’s arrangement? If I understand you correctly, when one expresses her positions, views, or perspectives, the implicit ‘arrangement of truth’ has been inevitably involved. It brings many opportunities to disagree, oppose, contradict, or challenge the conclusion or the final statement. Yet, if the object of consideration is not
some particular truth, we could find common ground on discussing the rules of the game.
An effective, interesting game (arrangement) works if it produces specific effects and if it can be reapplied in different situations. — Number2018

We can analyse what effects the capitalistic arrangements produce but how can we judge those effects? From the perspective of the capitalistic arrangements, the actor is rational and purchases according to their desires or needs and is satisfied with their purchase until it comes time to make the next one. The advertisement may convince people to want to buy a product for reasons they're not completely aware of but that's fair game. I don't know what a satisfying direction or conclusion for our discussion might be. There is no escape, we have to choose something, some system by which we live, from within the capitalistic arrangement, I am not pointing out any particular problem, only that we should aim to know why we're doing what we're doing and be correct in our reasons for doing what we're doing. Of course, these reasons can just be justified using the capitalistic arrangement and don't necessarily challenge it and that's usually how it is.

Yeah we are rapidly unlearning how to talk to each other — Hirnstoff

I warn against this kind of idealising of the past, what makes you believe things were better before? With the exception of trolling, which I suspect was taking place in the youtube conversation you showed.

We should also look at how the information is being presented, people are less likely to admit that they're wrong when they're being called an idiot. They are also less likely to admit they're wrong to people they dislike or strongly disagree with on other topics. These things detract from the pleasure of being proven wrong and turn it into a humiliating experience.

There's also a lot of misinformation, just because someone sounds confident and cites sources, you can't assume they're correct yet actually fact-checking them can be laboriously difficult. It is often simply easier to just disregard them.

I think being proven wrong requires a lot, you need to be open-minded and actively listen, you need to fact-check and you need to be talking to someone who is actually trying to help you rather than insult you. The discussion needs to be framed in a particular way (not an ideological debate for example). And we do need to see people being happy to part with incorrect information without responding with bias or fallacy. I could list more reasons, many more. Overall, the list of pre-requisites for someone being in a position where they're likely to admit they're wrong when they are wrong is long and so it's not surprising that it rarely happens.

Why do insults have to be fair? :(

I did watch the video, very funny and sums up my complaints.

180's is a significant and ideological definition of racism, whenever someone defines racism this way, I feel it becomes clear that their primary concern is not the logic of racism and this is a problem. I do think it is key to understand this definition though, we cannot take for granted that we agree with someone in opposition to "racism" when people have these definitions.

Any pretence of the agreement should be dropped, you go into a discussion hearing someone being appalled by racism and think that's the common ground you can work with but there is in reality very little. What you are against and what the likes of @180 Proof is against are completely different.

The understandings are incompatible, the logic we despise is not only not condemned but actually utilised because it can be justified depending on whether you're a from a marginalised group or not. It is very difficult and there's no real incentive to differentiate between what he considers a racist and himself from our position.

Which is not to say that we don't condemn state-censored violence or oppression, based on race or otherwise. However, the idea that identical logic and speech is racist or not racist depending on your skin colour or ethnicity is absurd. There is no possible excuse where it becomes justified yet 180 proof is trying to provide us with one.

Whenever I agree with @NOS4A2 over someone else, I feel they can just instantly be disregarded as a thinker with any possible merit.

I think that nature and time are overexaggerated by Peterson as a selective force. Let's say you started a business, you are going to be continually changing various aspects of your operations to ensure success. You have clear goals and you aren't relying on random mutations but calculated approaches. Then we zoom out, see that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are doing the same thing. Only good businesses practices survive. This is an extraordinary process of selective pressure against bad business practices, it is fast and brutal, every decade brings monumental change. This is how things are in the modern era, clearly, selective pressure is useful but are we going to go back and see how business was done in 500AD because it's a process based on 1000 years or more of business in that area? No, that would be stupid. If you were living in 500AD then you would do that but now? That is silly.

I think there are very few, if any, circumstances where modern society cannot outperform thousands or even tens of thousands of years of progress. Not to mention, many civilisations are this old, why do we only look at the Christian model? Why does Peterson not advocate learning about the Aztecs, one of the native American clans or Australian Aboriginal culture and learning from them?

I think we need to work within certain confines such as scientific truth, we can't just create any system we want nor can we compare the selective pressure of a few individual thinkers with something like business theory where there's so many involved and only success gives survival. However, let's not overstate how successful the older systems have been, let's not pretend like it is impossible for us to contradict what has taken thousands of years to create, just because it took thousands of years.

I disagree with this approach but it seems you are resolved. Certainly what you propose, getting out of your comfort zone, may help. I think oftentimes we search for complex answers but the simple answer is the best, experiencing the worst-case scenario, what you absolutely fear, may help you to overcome it. Or it may leave you traumatised who knows?

I feel like what you're proposing is similar to cutting out one's stomach because they're tired of being hungry. Technically, you're right, if you had no ego or sense of self then how can you be self-conscious but this is the worst possible approach to the problem. Instead of trying to not be self-conscious, which might be impossible, I certainly never ask myself if someone is at times self-conscious or not, people just hand it in different ways, I would propose we should try to think of self-consciousness as a problem not to be solved but to be managed.

Hm, just a very difficult topic to talk about so generally. It depends on where the problem actually lies, why is being self-conscious so miserable?

Even if there were ways, these things are crucially important, how could you trade them away to stop being self-conscious? I can be self-conscious, I think that comes with being generally conscious but why is this such a terrible thing that you'd go to such drastic measures? Or do you just not see them as being drastic somehow?

Hm, self-consciousness can be due to any of the four things and more, I don't think the solution can be to let go of your sense of self, or ego, or pride, those things are very important and you can't get rid of them even if you wanted to. The solution really depends on the cause and there are many causes and contexts.

If Streetlightx and nos4a2 have a ratio of 1 and the idea behind OP is that people with a ratio of 1 or above are good contributors then I think the theory is already disproven and we don't need to worry about it.

I think it'd help not to conflate different things
(1) Public Speaking
This is really not something you can overcome with philosophy, you just need to subject yourself to the experience until you get used to it. I think anyone who practices public speaking will overcome the fear, none of the things you listed matter here.

(2) Being Outgoing
It's not much different than the former except your upbringing, personality and other factors play a role here. I just don't think that it requires letting go of your sense of self or pride in yourself at all. You can still deeply care about what others think and be outgoing.

(3) Caring about what you let others see
I think there are various distinctions between what we "don't care about" which get ignored. You can not care about what others think and still be angry when others see you fail. What bothers the individual here is not the opinions of others but a host of other things. Let's say I am playing a game and you're watching me and I make a mistake, I might be deeply unhappy about this situation. You assure me "no worries, I make mistakes like that all the time" or say nothing at all, it doesn't actually matter what you do. I just want to show a perfect side of myself and I hate it when other people see me make mistakes, regardless of what you think.

(4) Caring about what others think
I think this in of itself is not a problem, this is not something anyone should be trying to fix. The issue is the word "care" not being sufficient. I assume we are actually talking about having anxiety about people thinking poorly of you. I think the correct link in the chain to assault is "what does it mean for someone to think poorly of me?" I care about what people think about me but not because I'm desperate to ensure everyone has a good opinion of me. I can ask "what are they thinking about me" without being emotionally attached to the answer.

I would offer totally different advice to achieve this, you must be very careful about what you base your ego on, your pride on, your sense of self. It is only logical that should you base these things on what others think on you then what others think of you can only be very important. When you base it on something more sturdy, something which you are in control of then these problems are reduced.