So I'm tempted to call philosophy proper the art of reasoning, where the teleological structure of reason is temporarily suspended and concepts are created out of the principles of reasoning itself. So we can follow an argument or make an argument or some such, just as a painter can paint a representation of a street or a person. It's still art to do so. But the suspension of goals or representation (for reason and painting, respectively) creates a kind of play with the principles themselves -- hence the art of reason, or the art of painting. There's even a play in just putting the principles to use, in setting up a picture just so, or coming up with a story or example that fits just right to some general principle or argument being made.

but the key thing I'm trying to resolve here is the claim that reason is teleologically structured, philosophy is entirely useless (but valuable), an

Disinterest applies to art as well as it does to reason. The beauty in art does not depend on any pleasure referenced by the work. Beauty lies in the extrinsic relationship between form and matter in the work, which drive our intrinsic judgement of taste. Beauty lies in the play between form and matter, but this play of the senses is non conceptual. It only becomes conceptual because we can universalize (idealization) the particular thereby expanding our conception of what is beautiful.

The formal principles (form) of action are either hypothetical or categorical imperatives, where a hypothetical imperative is instrumental in achieving a useful end, a categorical imperative formalizes the sense of duty which we intend/legislate as a reasonable principle (matter) of our action to serve as if ( Play) a universal law of reason. Kant's moral philosophy as in art also universalizes the particular. He based the motivation for our actions in our sense of duty ( as the product of the absolute freedom of our will which must be assumed for morality to exist) in which reason also must be disinterested in its moral pursuit.

Based on the U.S. Office of Trade Representative

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.

Typical Trump cherry picked bull crap.

I like the bike example. You can spend time watching people ride a bike, you can pick up a book and read all about how a bike works, and you can touch and feel a bike but until you try, and you learn how to ride a bike you cannot say you know what it means to ride a bike.

Similar to the Mary's Room thought experiment. Mary can learn all about the color red while in her white room, but until she gets out in real world an experiences the color red, she can't be said to know the color red.

What is a white nationalist?

My country right or wrong, is still right....where "my" means white. The majority ethnicity claims possession of an abstract notion of "country" whose value is held above normative standards of correctness or error. The male glaze is similar to the implied ownership of culture by the majority ethnicity. Most (black & white) view culture through white lenses because the white majority controls how and what gets presented in culture as culture.

Compare to a White (or Black) patriot...my country for better or worse. The patriot (white or black) and the nationalist both express love of country, but the patriot's love is about living up to community virtues. The patriot's sense of duty is driven by core social/private values, which they confirm in their actions.

Do you think the doctor ceases to be 'objective' if s(he)'s plan of action is undertaking, since like a narrator s(he) now becomes part of the story?

I don't quite understand why you said "Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives." He seems to have set up a vital relationship between them.

Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.

Drives are inherent in us, they are part of the Id, headless as such. They are different than desire, but become mixed up with desire typically reinforcing them, giving them direction.

“In biological functions the two basic instincts operate against each other or combine with each other. Thus, the act of eating is a destruction of the object with the final aim of incorporating it, and the sexual act is an act of aggression with the purpose of the most intimate union. This concurrent and mutually opposing action of the two basic instincts gives rise to the whole variegation of the phenomena of life”

Freud

Roy Orbison's "Crying" from David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.
There is a very raw feeling though out this song with emphasis on ending which goes off the chain.

2c. We must have reasons and explanations for everything. Brute facts are incoherent and unacceptable as objects of knowledge. This is closely related to 1c. Again, I think this is what some proponents of the PSR would say, but I do not agree with this.

So everything is explainable but then I wonder why this is so. Does that mean the Being must be explainable. Why something rather than nothing. Or perhaps there are some fundamentals, invariants, in nature, which can't be explained away (Constants maybe)?

Yes my explanation was not the best. Here is an explanation

Something that exist independently of men like a mountain or something for which no other explanation is possible or necessary.

Yes, I think it is a normative construction, a way of talking which assumes that the words we use are what are expected of us as members of the same group or culture.

Social Construction has two flavors: Weak & Strong, where the Weak view assumes certain foundational realities or brute facts and Strong constructionist denies any such brute realities. Where do you think "racism" lies?

I am stating that without Others the I is impossible...there are no "wolf children"

To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.

No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual.

What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.

Our desire is a desire for recognition, which is also the desire for what we believe the other desires, which is why we are always asking what others desire or lack. Our beliefs can be mistaken, but the structuring process remains the same.

Racism is an ugly fruit of a natural plant. That's what I'm saying. The people who embrace it are not necessarily ugly at heart. One of the most important reasons for seeing this is that counter intolerance is just as ugly as the primary type. If we label racist people as vermin, we have dehumanized them and shut the door on them. We have failed to realize that people can change.

Agree?

I don't think that 'racism' is natural, I don't even believe it is correct terminology since there is only one human race which is comprised of separate ethnic groups. I don't necessarily disagree that those who embrace some form of bigotry are 'ugly at heart', but that conclusion is only possible if it can be viewed from a position the outside the biased position.

While bias is natural, it also follows norms. As societal norms begin to condone such biases it becomes the easier for bias proponents to express opinions without fear of societal backlash. Here is a video with Don Lemon describing how norms are shifting in the United States.

Not sure I understand what you are stating....are you an idealist taking the position that the real structure of the world is in some sense identical and therefore ontologically dependent on the structure of thought, as suggest by a thinker like Berkeley?

I am using the "I" to refer to the self conscious self, the self that recognizes itself as such in a mirror, which I maintain is not possible without the interactions of others, is in fact derivative of these interactions and which first occurs around the same time as language acquisition begins.

I am using to describe the subjective of experience

This POV is not possible without self consciousness, reflexive awareness of oneself as a separate person...you asked for the location of the concept of being a person, and I suggest that location is derived from others.

It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others.
— Cavacava
Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?

Others are always there, that's an empirical fact, not some sort of logical regress argument. It is only by means of interactions with those closest to you that you can become you, that your desire for recognition can be realized. And, yes we begin to become self aware around the time of language acquisition, the mirror stage of development starts at around 24 months (the terrible 2s) goes on until around age 5.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'.

You know I disagree. You've described two distinct things here, and conflated them as one. Realizing that we are separate is one thing, and realizing that we have likes, dislikes, etc., which are similar to others is another thing. The former, recognizing that we are separate, does not require a recognition of other persons, as I explained, the latter does. The two are clearly not the same sort of thing, and ought not be classed together, as you do.

An infant is like a sponge it soaks up everything it experiences, it does not differentiate it self from what it experiences until it starts to develop language and its self realization (the mirror stage) which is not fully developed until around age 5.

Consider this. Do you agree that in order to believe that others have desires, likes and dislikes, which are similar to your own, you must first recognize such things within yourself? You cannot recognize a desire within another, as similar to your own, without having first recognized your own desire in order to make the comparison.

The question I have for you, is how can your own desires come from others, if you cannot even recognize a desire in another without first recognizing that desire within yourself?

It is the individual's desire for recognition that causes it to mimic what others desire, the desire for what we believe others desire actually structures the individual's desire. Again the infant is not born self aware, this develops as the child develops, so your attempt to rationalize this process is in principal otiose.

It does not work that way. It is though interactions with others that we come to realize that we are separate individuals with similar likes, dislikes, fears and so on. If you had no such interaction you would not, could not become a person.

Your desires are not your desires, they are the desires of others.

So the butcher, the baker, the cobbler, the culter, the chef...don't have an aesthetic?
— Cavacava

Ask the question in french and it's obvious they are more alike than different from each other.
artiste ou artisan? (artist or craftsman?)

This is also taken out of context. I am not sure what your point is? Yes, they are similar that is what I stated, but fine art is not instrumental based on utility like the crafts.

Here is the full quote from the OP

Great works of art exert power that is not diminished over time, power that goes beyond the normative bounds of any observer. I think this is only possible if force of these works reaches certain objective truths about the world that, if we have sufficient knowledge and emotion, can't be avoided because their power consists in their spontaneous ability to continue to generate new or deeper thoughts, newer more meaningful narratives in observers.

I don't think art is mainly about objective truths, I think it's more about transcendent subjective truths.

If by transcendent subject truths you mean " Truth that is, ultimately, beyond human comprehension and before all concepts. It is beyond reality, and is the Creator of realities, existence, time and all there is, was and is yet to be." Wikipedia, The only sort of experience that approaches this conception is that of the Sublime, as that which is beyond comprehension and I doubt such experience can be classified as true or false, it can be experienced but it can't be conceptualized.

Art is everywhere, even if it is not called art. The new 2018 summer clothing styles are a type of art. This is art you wear. Good art induces an emotional reaction. New clothes induce positive feelings. Designer clothes give the best buzz. The former is individual and the latter is collective.

Clothing styles are ornamental, they are not fine art. The aesthetic effect of fine art arises from its being and not from any purpose or instrumentality or any other interest that cause "the best buzz".

delete

Because they say "eat your beans, little meta"

The differentiation need not be a differentiation from other individuals.

So you are not denying that the individual distinguishes itself from the many because of the existence of other persons.

My contention is that in the real world the only actual way for a person to realize that it is an individual person is because it is able to distinguish itself from other persons and this can only be possible due to the pre-existence of other persons. If other people did not exist then I too would not exist.

Here is what you said:

A plurality is made up of a group of individuals, so the individual is a necessary component of the plurality. However, the existence of an individual does not require the existence of a plurality, so a plurality is not necessary for the existence of an individual. Therefore it is impossible that the plurality is prior to the individual, yet possible that the individual is prior to the plurality. Furthermore, arguments can be made which indicate that it is probable that the individual is prior to plurality, as one is prior to two.

An individual suggests a differentiation, and how could that differentiation be possible if not from other individuals..duh.

You didn't reply to my description of the logical relationship between "one" and "plurality". So I take this as a hollow assertion which is contrary to logic and ought to be rejected.

I tried to indicate that such logical assertions can't begin to explain people. Your description also didn't sound very logical for that matter.

This is surely wrong. A baby has the desire to eat, and though the mother may shape this desire through timing and substance in an effort to create habit, the desire is not the mother's desire. Nor is the desire derived from the mother. The desire is that of the baby, as an independent agent. Even within the womb, the need for nutrition is a need of the foetus, not a need of the mother.

Lacan's conception explained as follows:

Yet right from the start language has begun to work. The child is spoken to and named, and therefore it has a place in the discourse of the other, the words of its mother. As the child begins to become aware of itself as separate from its mother, as a distinct psychic entity, it does so only by taking itself to be its mother. There is a mirror effect, Lacan argues, in which the image the child has of itself is in fact the image of its mother. Hence the child's early ego, or pre-ego--Lacan calls it the ideal ego--takes shape as a misrecognition: the child understands itself not as itself but as the other, as its mother. From the beginning the ego is constituted as an illusory incorporation of the other; when it names itself it is only naming the other, or, in linguistic terms, its place is defined by the discourse of the other.

Lacan also conceptualized the mirror stage in relation to Hegel's concept of recognition and desire. The infant has a sensuous relation with its mother. Its needs are fulfilled by her and she is in tactile relation with it. In addition to needs, and quite distinct from them, the child has desires (libido) and, as Hegel says, the prime desire is to be recognized by the other's desire. The desire of the mother and the desire of the child thus enter into a complex, confused relation.

So, Rudy Guiliani was being interviewed when asked why he once presented something as fact that he now(at that time) was presenting as mere opinion.

I think you may be referring to Giuliani's implicit self refutation of this own statement regarding the subpoenaing of a president. In 1998 Charlie Rose asked Guiliani if President Clinton could be subpoenaed and Giuliani said yes, but now that Trump is President he says no, a President can't be subpoenaed.

So rather than saying he had changed his mind he doubles down on his current position, which is the preferred Republican way of presenting an opinion as if it were a fact, since it plays well to their constituency.

The infant child does not identify itself apart from its parents until it becomes self aware of itself as an independent agent, this is what Freud is all on about. The child has no structured psyche until it has experience, and these experiences are shaped by its caregivers....the child's desires are the desires of the mother, and in a similar manner our desires are the desires of others.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'.

A human infant cannot survive without a caregiver that's a fact and all children by definition have parents. People are not numbers, and logic alone cannot explain the fact of our existence.

Isn't this a vicious circle? Don't you need to be conscious to be able to study what others are doing? So you seem to imply that one must already be conscious in order to become conscious

Meta levels...we become self aware, we are not born that way, and we are able to make ourselves an object of our own thought. We do it, you want to call it vicious, but I don't think so, it is handy, pragmatic and ongoing.

I don't see how this is possible. You seem to be arguing that a plurality (we) is prior to the individual (I). Don't you believe in a first? How are two, three, and four possible without there first being one? I think that you have this backwards.

I believe in parents, caregivers, the people who teach you that the fire truck is red. The people teach you to speak and to help make you who you are....and you are not possible without them.

the existence of an individual does not require the existence of a plurality

Perhaps the continual coherent processing of the subject's common sense data has no exact pin-pointable location beyond the human body, as its locus. The external body is one big sense organ for the most part. Most of what I have read suggest that perception is a two stage process, in which we are subconsciously aware of sense data, then we classify or identify that data by our facility of judgement all typically in less than 500 milliseconds. A continual process of our organism's sense organs informing our understanding and reason, by way way of judgement where our ability to judge includes our continual ability to conceptualize sense data.

Chillin

n a moneyless society, what could motivate people to make goods for others?

I can think a society might be built (we are already partly there) within the structure of a diversified corporation where the corporation provides for all the employees needs based on merit, so that someone works to earn respect, power, management...position.

Do you think such a society could be just?

A dog, a mouse, and so on are all conscious but none of them are persons. What I am saying is that to be a person is to be self consciously aware of one's self among others and that this is learnt from others in the sense of a differentation. The 'I' is only possible because of the 'We', the "I" is derivative of the We.

Why is it (love) so important if you never grew up with the sincerity and genuineness of it in the household. Please explain. Thank you.

Our existence lacks any purpose without love, regardless of money, possessions and all the trappings of success.

...love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence

Erich Fromm

So no one raised you? You didn't learn how to be a person on your own, sure consciousness but you learnt how to be conscious by studying what others were doing, realizing that you are also an person.

I don't think so. You were raised by some one and they told you who your are, sure you are conscious but only because there are others that you have mimicked that's all.

It seems to me that consciousness and perception is innately solipsistic.

Why? It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others.