The Loyalist, the Contrarian, and the Solipsist

All three serve only the purpose of destroying any group or gathering. They cause the very few to be able to reign over the very many by ensuring that the very many can never gain sufficient influence to challenge the very few who forbid such behavior.

The loyalist would seem to support his group in that by promoting any excuse to justify the group’s behavior he offers resistance to any objections. But while promoting any excuse, valid or invalid, he causes the group to become known by, and often dependent upon, invalid justifications. Thus what good he offers by finding valid excuses is canceled by promoting the reputation of dependency upon invalid justifications, as much harm as good thus serving no purpose.

The Contrarian simply offers blind resistance to any loyalty to any agreement. Every group requires agreement in one form or another and thus the contrarian is simply an instance of entropy and nothing more. The contrarian was formerly known as the “Ney sayer”.

The Solipsist offers merely one idea such as to diminish confidence and increase impotence. That idea is the idea that everything is merely one’s imagination, “nothing else is real”. The idea conveys indecision and doubt concerning what to do next, stifling forward progress and distracting from real adversarial behaviors.

Such people are programmed into their behavior as a habitual automatic response that they feel is merely their natural and justified condition. They believe their responses are their right to behave as they please. They are given the idea that they serve to dissuade those bad people (people actually trying to think and make progress).

None of the three are actually in the realm of philosophy, but rather merely specific philosophies being applied upon the public, selling the public into impotence. They are all anti-philosophy, distracting and resisting rational thinking in the public as well as any potential grouping or gathering by the public.

America was founded largely by the right for the public to gather in protest. These specific types of people are, in effect, anti-American and pro slavery, although not many of them would ever realize it as they are too busy arguing against anything and everything to even question why they are bothering to do so and the real consequences involved.

They are the Magog (aka “maggots”) serving the Abyss, impotence, and annihilation within any society that doesn’t forbid their presence.

Wow. Maybe that society ought to ban them.

On the other hand, this is all rather abstract. Would you be so kind as to cite some examples of this regarding the sorts of things we likely to confront listening to the evening news? And how does it all tie in with RM and THE God?

Only those in society who are attempting to accomplish anything have need to ban those behaviors.

I don’t see that it strongly relates to the evening news. It is a matter of philosophy and the attempts of individuals to make progress in their lives, especially regarding any rallying, gathering, or grouping.

RM and THE God relate to anything and everything, but I don’t see any direct relevance to this subject.

If you were interested in the RM:AO theories concerning sociology, those three behavior types would be analogous to a negative affectance upon a positive particle (a group). Their effect is the same as a negative electric field surrounding a positive particle like a proton. If the negative is not kept separate from the positive, it neutralizes the positive into random, loose energy, annihilating the proton (the positive group).

Socially, it is disbanding all gatherings, including families, into a gray mush of human resource for social engineers to manipulate into their specific design, often requiring the elimination of a large portion of specific types and races based upon eugenics designs for the future of the world and humanity (which I wouldn’t mind if I thought they were actually sane).

Yes, but “rallying, gathering or grouping” around what? And don’t these concepts come particularly in focus when those rallying, gathering or grouping around one thing come into conflict with folks who do the same regarding something else?
In other words, wouldn’t it be insightful to embody the loyalist, the contrarian and the solipsist? What does it mean here to “make progress” if the actual interactions of flesh and blood human beings are not [eventually] broached and examined?
It is as though the real importance here [for you] revolved around these types of people and interactions as concepts.

Maybe it’s just me but this seems contradictory. They relate to “anything and everything”…but not “directly” to this?

What I am interested in [as always] is the manner in which you may or may not be able to relate “analysis” like this to the world we live in.

Okay, how more specifically does this relate to the loyalist, the contrarian and the solipsist in the context in which [historically] socialists and capitalists have approached the family institution? Or even in the manner in which I have broached it on my own here—making distinctions between families we are born into [and did not choose] and the families we become a part of later in our lives [and do have a role in choosing]. What are the limits of philosophy in encompassing such things “logically”. What might we never “know” for certain about them?

Anything that isn’t on the socialist agenda (the few controlling the many) which happens to be largely hidden from view even from its adherents.

The issue is one of seeking resolve versus seeking destroying the “enemy”, whoever that might be perceived to be.

Only if one wishes to destroy one’s own intentions. But then some people believe in suicide as a means to accomplish escape.

Making progress does not require such intense focus, although it would be nice to be able to properly justify one’s agenda to even that degree.

It is the topic of the thread, if that is what you mean.

Yeah, and your point?

Which is not the topic of the thread, but I thought I had anyway in my last response to you.

The family unit is the traditional social element, “atom”, from which social designs have been founded and capitalistic in nature. The newer socialist designs discourage family bonds so as to have greater influence over the future of humanity; “live for what we want you to live for and forsake all else”, “live for our social design, only”. - Anti-capitalist.

I don’t really see any relevant connection to your agenda and this topic other than your loyalist tendencies toward seeking out the negative of and attacking anything even vaguely related to what specific other people say, inspired merely by the presumption that they must be related to your enemy (which appears to be just about anyone and everyone in your case, but certainly me).

You’re a loyalist.

Haha… You’re a solipsist and contrarian.

To what do you imagine that I am a loyalist?

Yes, but that is what many socialists argue regarding capitalism: The economically powerful few controlling the lives of the economically powerless many. All equally hidden in the illusion of one man, one vote. This is far less a philosophical than a political issue for them. Aside from those who embrace Marxism as a “scientific” explanation for it all. And that’s certainly not my agenda.

In what particular context though? What some folks construe to be a resolution, others construe to be a path of destruction. And this is generally the case regarding any conflicting value judgments. Loyal to what point of view? Just being or not being loyal barely scratches the surface. Same with being contrary. As for solipsism, what does this really have to do with actual human interaction. How far can you take it [for all practical purposes] when interacting with others?

Again, making progress with regard to what agenda? Sure, with respect to understanding the laws of nature progress is able to be measured with astounding accuracy. You either land men on the moon or you don’t. But if the argument shifts instead from spending all that money on space exploration or spending it on eliminating human starvation, what constitutes “progress” then?

Now, sure, if you wish to argue the topic of the thread is to grasp these things only “as concepts”, okay, that is your prerogative. But I can’t help but speculate that such an agenda contributes to the manner in which so many folks see philosophy as largely irrelevant to their lives. And I am always just curious to see if folks who make arguments like yours can bring the words out into the world. You either can or you cannot. You either will or you will not.

Would you please elaborate on why someone might not see this as contradictory? Would not “this” also be encompassed in “anything and everything”. Perhaps I am just missing your point.

And what of the family units that existed in pre-capitalist political economies? What of those in nomadic, slash and burn, hunter and gatherer etc. social, political and economic interactions? The family then was always construed in a considerably less “atomistic” manner. The capitalist family is just another historical, organic configuration that revolves around a particular means of production. Capitalism thrives on the market. And when families become less and less extended and more and more “atomistic” that’s just more and more commodities that will be bought and sold. And when property becomes all the more “private” [instead of tribal or communal] it’s all the easier to fabricate laws that pass this property along. Does anyone really imagine that a thousand years from now we will have families existing exactly as we conceive them today?

As I said, you either can or you cannot translate your abstractions above into arguments of more relevance down here. And if you can then you either will or you will not. That’s up to you. It’s not like I follow you around from thread to thread demanding this of you. I’m simply curious, that’s all. My “enemy” is objectivism—objectivism with respect to value judgments and with respect to our understanding of human identity.

The exact reply I was expecting…
I’m a Solipsist, but not by your definition. This position and some others of mine (but not all) are Contrarian. Does that make me a Contrarian? Well, by your defintion I am not - I certainly never adopt stances blindly.

You are a Loyalist to the definitions you accept, and to reason.

…and the exact response that I expected from you… contrarian.
There is a difference between loyalty and dedication.
“Loyalist”, as defined in the OP, refers to a group to which one is loyal.

To what group (or other person) do you imagine me to be loyal?

Is the “group” aspect of your OP definition essential to Loyalism (presumably “group of people”)?
Can one not be Loyalist to things (or even a group of things)?
If not then there’s no point in me carrying on.

But if so, then we can take into account what seems to be the real purpose of your definition - the fact that whatever the Loyalist is loyal to, he serves no purpose on account of causing as much harm as good in being loyal, because the good in finding valid excuses is canceled by promoting the reputation of dependency upon invalid justifications.

You cancel any potential good from any validity to your excuses, by promoting the reputation of dependency upon your invalid justifications.
Such invalid justifications include your dependency on certain definitions, and on a wider scale, your “dedication” to logic and reason at the expense of passions and emotions. According to my philosophy, there isn’t even any black and white distinction between rationality and irrationality - rationality is an expression of emotion.

The contrarian doesn’t care about or even pay attention to the actual subject and point of what anyone is attempting to discuss or accomplish. He merely seeks out any opportunity to disagree and point a finger of invalidity.

A definition of “loyalty” has very little to do with the topic at hand. The topic is about people who automatically behave in such a way as to disrupt, distract, or destroy the intention of others, “magogs”. The examples were the loyalist (the least of the three mentioned) who destroys through providing reasons for other to be disloyal, the contrarian, who destroys by means of proposing the contrary to whatever is being attempted, and the solipsist who proposes that nothing being done has any point or real purpose anyway.

But if so, then we can take into account what seems to be the real purpose of your definition - the fact that whatever the Loyalist is loyal to, he serves no purpose on account of causing as much harm as good in being loyal, because the good in finding valid excuses is canceled by promoting the reputation of dependency upon invalid justifications.

And yes, the “group” can be merely a single person being so accosted by another or even within one’s own mind.

And one can destroy inspirational ideas by the same means.

But try to note that any and all loyalty, contrariness, and/or solipsist notions are not what is being proposed as destructive, merely the blind lust toward those attributes, not attending to the actual intent of the OP, for example, so as to be contrarian concerning the strawman issue of a pedantic definition.

Yes, I am very aware of your gray, “everything is pointless”, “nothing is knowable”, “life is meaningless”, “nothing is real”, “all is hopeless” “philosophy” that you wish to bestow into the public. The question becomes for what purpose do you do it? And your real answer is that you have no idea. It is merely an urge that overtakes you and from where, doesn’t come to mind.

But of course, feel free to contradict me.

This to me is a classic straw man argument fabricated [out of words] by objectivists and their ilk.

As though if you are not in turn an objectivist then you must believe that everything really is pointless, that nothing really is knowable, that life really is meaningless, that nothing really is real, that everything really is hopeless.

And, sure, there are subjectivists [nihilists] out there who do embrace something like this point of view.

Me, I suggest there are things we can know objectively and things we cannot. Some belief, meaning, knowledge, etc. is predicated on the laws of logic or on the laws of nature. But others are rooted instead in dasein and in conflicting goods. And in the subjunctive complexities of reason and emotion and the biological evolution of life on earth.

But in order to explore the latter you must be willing to bring your words out into the world and defend them existentially. Otherwise your arguments become “true” only because you get to define what all the words in them mean.

I do see these patterns. I have seen the contrarian called the rebel: iow it is a character trait rather than a rebellion based on good grounds. Solipsists seem rare to me, much more rare than your definition of them. It seems more like a kind of pathological skepticism: nothing can be known, so nothing can be done. This seems like a different kind of category than the other two. Not that this is a problem, I am just mulling over the types.

Do you mean this to be a complete set? Or the primary problematic types?

Some other possible ones, perhaps: the bad apple theorist. There are no systematic problems, there are simply bad apples. This has some qualities in common with a Loyalist, but actually a BAT could say that the Group has done somethign wrong under the leadership of a bad apple. Nixon has this role, for example, as a bad apple.

Then there is the No One Should Get Riled Upist. They serve as dampeners. They focus on the emotions or alleged emotions of people who see or claim there are problems. This is done professionally by coroporate PR people, but it is also a role taken by many individuals. That no one listens often if one does not get riled up is seen as a non-issue. This is a kind of contrarian, functionally. But in a Loyalist kind of way. They counter protest, and but this ends up in fact as a kind of Loyalist act since it dampens critique. They may also counter critique from those in Power, so this might be a kind of counter-Loyalist act, but since the main result is a kind of stasis, it is more problematic when aimed at critique of Power.

As the resident contrarian, I have to say that I disagree with most of this.

No… just a few common types.

I would put both of those in the category of the Loyalist = “one who ignores a valid concern for sake of maintaining the positive image/belief”.

And again, it isn’t an issue of any of them being totally wrong in everything they propose, but rather the exaggeration and accumulation of all they propose. They are counter productive by going too far, too often, either too positive or too negative.

  1. Loyalist = “nothing can be said in disfavor”
  2. Contrarian = “nothing can be said in favor”
  3. Solipsist = “nothing can be said relevant”

In the presence of all 3, no progress at all can be made by anyone to accomplish anything but more noise, keeping everyone deaf and dumb.

This sentiment is the only valid one you have proposed so far (note my lack of contrariness when someone actually speaks sense - often notable when I am addressing other posters on this forum, but almost never you).

However it’s foolish of you to imply that this was what you meant all along - given your presentation of 3 stances that you simply don’t like as inherently blindly lustful:

This is entirely different to saying that they aren’t inherently blindly lustful, it’s only blind lust towards these stances that you were averse to all along, which is what you’re now trying to say.


Even if this was what you meant all along, but found yourself unable to communicate when it came down to it, you may as well have called this thread “Blind lust”. Or perhaps it’s only blind lust towards these 3 stances that you’re against - and other types than these “few common types” are perhaps sometimes or maybe even always ok.

How about “blind loyalty, blind contrariness and blind Nihilism”?
It is, afterall, clearly Nihilism that you are speaking of and not Solipsism.
I guess my main beef with you is that you are blindly committed to misunderstanding and misrepresenting two stances that I hold dearly (though I repeat, I do not hold them blindly by any measure): Solipsism and Communism (though I don’t identify myself by the latter). My reaction towards this will therefore easily seem contrarian on my part, though given the wider picture that you do not acknowledge, you would discover that I am not Contrarian through and through.

I don’t really need to - you contradict yourself: the reply of iambiguous shows I am not the only one who notices this. I simply call you out on it sometimes (and let’s face it, you can’t mention Solipsism in a thread title and not gain my attention). I have only ever meant to help you, but you never listen.

As iambiguous says, you construct a strawman. To correct your misunderstandings of my philosophy:
“things can have a point, determined subjectively”,
“things can be knowable, but the term needs to be put in its place”,
“life can be meaningful, determined subjectively”,
“things can be real, but the term needs to be put in its place”,
“things can be hopeful, determined subjectively”.

Abandoning modernist/objective/universal truth is the height of contemporary philosophy, as it is psychologically equivalent to abandoning totalitarianism, monarchy and dictatorship. Truth as the highest authority is no different to “your leader” as the highest authority, only one is personified and the other is not. I am actually averse to this - your philosophies all contradict your words that you are too. I am the progressive one of us, not you. This is the reason why I do what I do, which only you have no idea about. Clearly I do. And you really need to start listening.

Jane might be deemed a contrarian in the struggle against capitalism. But, to the capitalist, she is seen more as a loyalist to socialism.

Or one might be deemed a “rebel” with regard to both. Or, taking it all the way, one might be deemed rebellious with regard to any and all economic and political value system. One of those “contrarians”.

One might even embrace nihilism and insist that such values are actually just a delusion [can only be construed as a delusion] in a world without God. Or, for James, a world without THE God…a world apparently that can be understood in terms of “RM”.

Or there are even contrarians who predicate their objections based solely on the manner in which it pisses the objectivists off. They take a perverse delight in watching the essentialists squirm—flailing about in their attempts to fit the enormous complexities of the world [of human interaction out in the world] into their one size fits all definitions. They couldn’t care less about what constitutes “good grounds” because that [to them] can never be more than just a point of view.

I think: Is the OP aimed at a conceptual analysis of all this because the author presumes we can’t come down here until that is finally settled? Or is it because [if only subconsciously] there is a sneaking suspicion that down here these things will [can] never be settled?

Jane? Who is Jane? What happened to Mary—the one with the abortion?

To be against everything is not contrarian, because what are you going to be for when everyone is against something?

Going by JSS schema if the Group is capitalist, then the contrarian, in this case would be a contrarian. They are not being loyal to the Group/country. Also it is not simply going against the Group that makes one a contrarian, it is that one has that as a character. This may not Always be easy to decide, but still I Think the concept can be used. And we all know contrarians and mean by this not simply that they disagree about something, even something important.

I have the same quibble here.

Sure, one could be a contrarian like this, though if one was in a nihilist Group, it might be made clear if the person was a contrarian if she started to disagree with the nihilists. Like if the Group decided that since there was no way to determine whether raping 3 year olds was bad or good, not doing it has just as much chance of causing problems. The nihilist might be considered a contrarian if suddenly she Went against the Group and thought it could be determined that raping was more likely to be wrong. She might of course simply press for the Group policy that pleased her - no raping of 3 year olds - but she might also find that Deep down - on the real ground that is - she did not Believe this was an issue of simple personal preference - even if she could not find a way to support her actual belief with some kind of proof. She might even find that she considered some of her peers immoral, however poorly this fit with her self-conception as a nihilist. That’s the troubling thing about like on the ground, in the real World: often the ideas in the head about epistemology and ontology are much less solid and have less to do with our identities than who we actually are and what we actually Believe.

In any case, I would call a person who disagrees with Everything because he likes to see people squirm a provocateur, and perhaps a hedonist, since pleasure is the guiding motivation. He certainly couldn’t be seeking to do some good with his actions, since he would have no way of determining what was more likely to do good or what good was. He also could not have any moral outrage essentialists or objectivists, so no moral motivations are involved.

I don’t know JSS’s motives. I took it as pointing out problematic character types. IOW types that he considers cause problems because of habit.