cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
Why do you keep twisting my words? Nothing I've said even remotely implies that.
You are saying this site is not for discussing philosophy in general, it's for discussing Stefan's brand of philosophy. It sounds more neutral but the meaning is exactly the same.
This site is from the outset quite obviously for FDR philosophy. I mean, look at the forum's guidelines:
Ethics
If you want to post about ethical theories, it is important to become familiar with the basic concepts of Universally Preferable Behavior.
That's because UPB is a rigorous, philosophical approach to ethics. Not because it's Stefan's take on it. If someone proved that UPB was an incoherent mess of an idea, divorced from the truth, then that guideline wouldn't be there.
-
I'm saying this site focuses on the philosophy of FDR. Molyneuxian philosophy, perhaps? I don't know. But it isn't a site for the general discussion of philosophy or philosophies. In the same way a Marxist forum is likely to spend most of its time discussing the ideas of Marx, Engels, et al, rather than philosophy in general.
None of this intends to make a value judgement about anything, it's just an honest description. If the OP wants a discussion on philosophy in general, this is not the site for him.
So in other words this site is just a cult that worships the ideas of Stefan. It's not a place to discuss ideas that are philosophically true irrespective of who they originate from.
-
Did I say those things?
You said this site is not for philosophy, it's for the philosophy of FDR. Maybe I misunderstood, but that sounds like you are suggesting this site is focused on opinion rather than fact. Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence. There is no such thing as the 'philosophy of FDR', just as there is no such thing as Stefan Molyneux's brand of truth. It's either truth or it's not.
-
I don't go to christian forums and debate theism because I know they are crazy. If you think that people in the community are unable to be objective, that it's just a cult of opinion, then participating makes you irrational. Complaining about it even more so.
-
This is a site for the philosophy of FDR, not philosophy.
Then why are you here?
-
I don't know, can I give a valid definition? You'd have to describe your terms, first.
But the OP being downvoted 3 times and the general tone - read: unfriendly and in opposition - do seem to suggest hostility.
I suppose that's what he gets for not toeing the party line.
You forgot sarcastic. Anyway, this is just blaming the victim. Saying,
None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here.
is equivalent to saying that a rape victim can't argue that they were forced to have sex since nobody forced her to walk into that dark alley...
-
I'm talking purely of thoughts that are of self doubt and self deprication. Sometimes even judgement calls of people on the street. I used to look at people and make random quips about them, and it's like, it would suck if they actualy heard what I was saying lol.
How it's different from religious thinking is that it's not a filtering in a shaming sense. But just in line with the whole idea that your thoughts shape your experience of the world to some degree. There's a lot of objective reality you can't control of course, but there are also so many things in life that can either give you a positive or negative experience based solely on your perceptions on them.
I think I know what you mean, but I take a different approach. Rather than filter them I confront them head on. If I am talking to someone for example and I say something embarrassing which leads to self-criticism like "Well that was dumb", I like to respond with, "Well then WHY DID YOU LET ME SAY IT?!".
Or if it's something like, "You're a coward", then I don't let that idea linger. I follow it up with, "Where's the evidence for that? You aren't going to just label me and hide."
I think you have the right idea in not letting yourself get stuck in a cycle of self-attack and cascading negative thoughts but I think there are better ways to handle them than filtering. (curiosity and confrontation are my personal favorites)
-
Hello, I was wondering if you folks might help me out with some logical arguments surrounding the idea of open borders (either for or against). There is quite a lot of backlash in Canada here recently about the temporary foreign workers program which a lot of people here seem to be quite against because many jobs are going to "foreign workers" instead of "canadians" and 'they' are taking "our" resources out of the country.
People should obviously be allowed to work and move freely, but I can sympathize with their argument in a statist society to some degree because temporary workers are used to the advantage of corporations to depress wages. So they can import cheap, temporary labor relatively pain free while doing the equivalent for an individual requires a visa or even worse, citizenship. It's also a valid point to say that the money they earn is not going back into the local economy at all if they are taking it with them to their previous country.
Now the logical arguments for open borders involves their imaginary properties, and that other imaginary entity we call government. Since the borders aren't even there, the argument that they shouldn't restrict movement is pretty simple lol. Good luck getting people to hear it though.
-
Wow, I'm sorry that you were fired but that sounds like one of the most oppressive workplaces I've ever heard of. They, "wanted someone who didn't just show up whenever they wanted", meaning they wanted you to conform to their expectations but did not give a fucking inch even though you were outright lied to about the job details. That's some amazing bullshit right there.
At this point I was boiling over with rage. I don't know whether I acted appropriately. I told the foreman their words meant nothing. Every time he attempted to bring a counterargument I spoke over him and repeated "So your words mean nothing". He told me too had cancelled a vacation with his family, to which I responded "So your words mean nothing". He continued to try to voice his side, but I just escalated by calling him a liar and a fucking liar as I threw down my hat and workshirt before storming out.
I'm boiling over with rage just reading about your experience. Honestly I wouldn't have had the tremendous amount of patience you displayed here, especially not when it interferes with your family.
By leaving in a manner that will be viewed as "throwing a tantrum" or acting unprofessionally, I feel fairly confident that they will never analyze the root cause of the problem in our relationship. They will write everything off as me being crazy or childish or any number of other derogatory terms.
As someone who likes to think they want to see a better world, I have to wonder if I'm not just spitting poison back at people in an effort to kill them with their own shortcomings. I feel simultaneously ashamed of my response and proud of my response. I'm ashamed of how I have represented philosophy but proud that those who wronged me will never see the light and eventually destroy themselves.
My question is, if I keep acting this way, am I part of the problem or part of the solution (is it not helpful to destroy those who reject reason?). Perhaps something else. I feel very ambivalent about my actions during this and many similar episodes of my life.
Let's be honest here, they wouldn't have analyzed the root cause no matter what you did. They wanted to use you and would not settle for anything less than total submission. I get the pride, but why would you feel shame here? Philosophy is about dealing with reality, and pretending that these people could be reasoned with absolutely no evidence for that would have been a total disservice to the truth.
If you don't treat people justly then you can't expect them to improve their behavior. If someone repeatedly assaults me and I keep going to them and pretending like we are friends then I'm spitting in the face of everyone who knows what true friendship is, and I'm encouraging further abuse.
I'm surprised nobody responded to this earlier, but I hope I'm not too late as I'd like to hear more about it. I think the difference between you and Socrates is that he had no choice in who was around him while there are certainly better work environments available to you. That's not to diminish anything you've said; What I mean is what you pointed out earlier in your post, that there were signs early on that could have helped you avoid this experience. Do you think that you purposefully ignored them? Or was it a case of a lack of trust in your own judgment?
-
To take the metaphor further, imagine if this guy cornered the pepper spray market by buying up all the retail operations. Suddenly only retail options he owns would get access to the best and cheapest products, preventing other companies from competing. Is this a free market?
Seems like a clever business practice to me. Remember that in this hypothetical scenario that buying up all the retail operations is taking a huge gamble, because if a new competitor finds a way to break into the market then you are now at a huge disadvantage due to the expenses you've incurred in securing the monopoly.
I mean it's not even being a dick since that's a huge risk. Being a dick is when you are Microsoft and you use your leverage on manufacturers to implement a proprietary standard that screws over anyone who wants to use a computer without Windows on it.
The only ethical concern I see here is possibly who he is supplying that pepper spray to....
-
That squirrel post was hilarious, and your writing ability is excellent. I don't know how you can manage a post everyday but it's definitely the first blog I've ever bookmarked for future reading. I'm also considering a second run at attending a university so I'm definitely going to have to start from the beginning. Cheers
-
The reasoning does not alter the moral content of an action. If by context you mean the details of a situation then yes, that is important in determining the ethical nature, but context in terms justification is meaningless. If I'm a rapist who says, "She was asking for it! Look at how she was dressed.", it would have no bearing on whether what I did was evil or not.
A) A 30 year old woman have intercourse with a 13 year old boy is Rape by definition. What if they were in love?
B) A 30 year old man is having intercourse with a 13 year old girl, is Rape by definition. But what if they were in love?
That's irrelevant (and not really possible given their emotional maturity) because the power disparity between a 13 year-old and a 30 year-old is far too great for the sex to be consensual. If you start accepting justifications for morally evil behavior then you've turned morality into subjective opinion, since people can come up with justifications for anything.
-
Totally agree man. I also think that slaves should have just created their own slave-free society to prove that it could work. I don't know why they opted to stay in chains and grumble about how they don't like slavery, so hypocritical.
-
Is this philosophy or a pissing contest?
You turned it into a pissing contest when you suggested that people here aren't capable of processing reality... and you're seriously wishing people were more objective? Do you not see the contradiction here?
-
Ok just listened to the call in question. I think the caller had a great point about how governments can affect the production of heroin through things like burning poppy fields, which would increase its price (since the producers need to take into account the cost of the damage) but didn't make a case for why the use of bitcoin would go down if it were banned. Maybe some people would be afraid of the legal ramifications but anyone who understands bitcoin knows how difficult it would be for the government to control the currency in any meaningful way.
I did think it was interesting that Stefan a similar point to my own, that banning it would be kind of counterproductive since it would just make people pay more attention to it and the reasons the US banned it.
-
Cool, my Skype username is ivanlares .
We are planing one for this Sunday if you are interested
I'm there.
-
Would you consider a chess bot's decision an act of free will? I prefer non superficial answer. I want you to compare and contrast a chess master (or GM) and a chess bot's decisions as it pertains to the game of chess, and help us understand in what sense they either both have free will, or one has free will and the other does not.
The problem with any computer analogy is that computers are programmed by humans, which we are arguing have choice. You can't use them as an example without consideration of that fact, that humans are designing them to mimic us as much as possible. A chess bot's decision is not an act of free will at the moment. It is certainly possible that it could be in the future but not without human intervention.
I have no idea what you mean by the word conscious, meaning, understanding, and experience there, and if a chess bot does not decide, then describe the act of making one move as opposed to the other in a non decision method.
It isn't really deciding. It's just following whatever logic it was programmed to by a human. So it is limited to whatever the human deems is the best decision.
Let me add a third category to make this clearer, if a chimp was thought to play chess, would the chimps moves (on a chess board) also be an act of free will or not?
Chimps wouldn't be much different than a computer I think. I mean a human could train a chimp to make certain moves in particular situations, but a chimp is not going to come up with chess strategies on its own and wouldn't really understand what it was doing on an abstract level. To the chimp it would be moving physical pieces of wood to different squares.
-
Because a ban would inhibit bitcoins actual ability to be used as a method of free exchange, people will react appropriately and value it correctly as less valuable (And it would because you have the threat of legal action, no local stores are going to take it, etc.).
You are talking about inhibiting 'future potential'. People use it to trade at the individual level now and that wouldn't change. I mean I agree with you that its value would immediately drop after a ban due to perception, just like gold drops whenever the stock market seems to be doing well, but as things get worse its value would go up despite the ban.
In the case of bitcoin, a ban would make the the possibility of the use of bitcoin to freely be used in exchange far less likely, easy, and safe while increasing the opportunity cost of its use with legal threats and less convenienceLets look at the example of a dollar, while the dollars value is being debased (inflation) it still maintains the same utility as a currency, the ability to use it to exchange goods has not been greatly altered (until you need wheelbarrows of it to buy stuff; so some lack of ability to store wealth). Now say china takes the US over and states, 'now you use the Won', the value of the dollar will plummet. This is because its not backed by any physical commodity (just as bitcoin is not) and assumptions of future value would be low indeed (the government supporting its value is now gone). The key for currencies is the question, "will i be able to exchange this thing for another thing"? Acting as if a government ban on bitcoins wouldn't decrease its value is not economically or logically sound. It doesn't function as say beds, medicine, or a drugs that all have uses other than for the purpose of exchange that people would demand them for; in which if these were banned, the prices would increase because the demand for the actual function of the good remains.
Like you said, the reason that the value of the dollar would plummet in your scenario is because a fiat currency is one that has value by decree of the government, so when the government disappears then so does the value. The mistake you are making is saying that bitcoin is somehow equivalent to this. Yeah a ban would decrease its potential value relative to a non-banned bitcoin in the minds of some consumers, but in reality none of its utility would be diminished like a fiat currency so those that do use it would continue if they think the cost of the risk does not outweigh the benefit of the utility.
Illegal downloading is a great example of this. People ignore the law and download music anyway because the risk is low and the reward is high. The government would spend itself into oblivion trying to prosecute people for it.
I agree that for a currency the key question is, "Will I be able to exchange this thing for another thing?", but disagree that a ban has an effect on this in the present since bitcoin is used mostly for individual trades.
As for your second question, if they were allowed to freely exchange the bitcoin then people would be liekly to place their wealth in bitcoins to preserve their wealth. But in the case of a ban, future pleading aside, its not very useful when you cannot buy food with them, cannot go to the local car dealership, etc. Furthermore, if the gov. is seizing or destroying bitcoins when it can find them that is a threat of loss of wealth.
What about a ban stops people from trading bitcoins for food or cars? And how is the government going to seize anyone's bitcoins? The only way they could do that is if you gave them up yourself. (considering that they are digital and can be stored anywhere, it would be trivially easy to hide them)
I'm not sure that is really a valid concern. They can't realistically seize bitcoins or destroy them as you could store them on your computer, out of their reach (that is, unless they raid your home and steal your computer where you are storing your wallet).
Edit: from what I understand, you could also just write some sort of key down on a piece of paper as well?
Since I haven't actually bought any bitcoins or installed the software, I'm not 100% clear on that.
If you encrypt your wallet then they can't seize your coins and if you make backups of your encrypted wallet then they can't destroy them either.
-
Because it would violate it. That's a real contradiction, right there.
You are saying it is an uncaused cause, and that's why its a violation of determinism right? I'm saying choice is a synthesis of causal factors (past, present, future). There is no single cause. When you argue causality as linear for humans the same way it is for rocks you invalidate consciousness, intelligence, and reason as well as choice. Saying that one is an illusion and the others are 'complex systems' doesn't get around that.
-
How can 'reason and imagination' generate inputs without antecedent causes? How is that possible?
I said not limited to antecedent causes. In other words, not determined by antecedent causes but greatly influenced by them. No one just has the schematics for a space shuttle pop into their heads randomly, they build on the work of others.
That is basically my argument. We are merely very complex computers, and given the right inputs one of the outputs may well be to utter, "I don't have free will."
So you realize that you are arguing against reason then?
It matters not that you can conceive of other courses of action; given identical inputs, that series of events would not have happened any other way, including the thought process you had when 'choosing' the action. Consider a lab experiment where all inputs are identical and the test is repeated identically; the output of the test will be identical every time unless the inputs change. Given identical inputs even a double pendulum will demonstrate identical outputs. So unless your brain is gathering inputs from outside of the causal chain, or somehow generating its own, there is no way any action you take can possibly be chosen. We must be subject to the same rules as everything else!
Given a particular set of circumstances, yes a person will choose a particular action every time. I'm not sure how that invalidates choice.... (that's like saying I'm a robot because I choose life over death all the time, if I had TRUE free will, it would be random!
) The reality is we never have identical inputs, in part because we can imagine being in a similar situation again and plan for how to deal with it if it does happen. So far this comes down to: If you define free will as independent of causality (whatever that means), then it doesn't make sense. And if you say choice is part of the causal chain then somehow it becomes an illusion, but reason becomes a 'complex system' that is part of the causal chain.
(why choice doesn't qualify as a 'complex system' that is part of the causal chain, no one will ever know)
-
Yeah it's a really dumb way to limit the pool of applicants; HR departments seem to be staffed exclusively by morons. I think it encourages hiring people who will say anything to get a job.
-
I have to agree with dsayers. It's really weird to read your post where you talk about these problems in total isolation. As if it's some weird thing that happened to you which is not at all connected to your history. I mean you mentioned your parents but not in connection to any of the problems you are talking about. It's just a vague, "how I was treated as a child".
Why did this stuff happen and what's stopping you from taking action now?
-
I'm very sorry about that. It's a horrible and dehumanizing thing to do to anyone, many times more so to a child.
And I think you analysis is spot on, for what it's worth.
I hope there is another call setup soon and that you can join us
Thank you for the sympathy. How weird, I just realized that I wasn't sad when writing my post; It was more a matter-of-fact thing, like I'm a scientist talking about the results of some study I did. I sometimes catch myself thinking that there are too many, "I'm sorry about that" kind of responses, and that this makes them seem less genuine. I just realized we are all susceptible to old patterns all the time, and maybe repetition isn't such a bad thing in this area. (It's not like we're going to get it many other places)
-
Hi Casey, welcome to the forums.
It’s been three months since I talked to Stefan and the philosophical world on the Sunday call-in show February 2nd, 2014: Thinking With the Right Head (I come in at around 53 minutes I believe). I haven’t been able to listen to it at all. Every time I get close, or think about listening to it I freeze up, and get this wave of emotion that hits me. It’s a mix of fear, anxiety, sadness… and probably a few I don’t even know the exact word for. (it’s hard to just type this without feeling this) I’ve had panic attacks just thinking of listening to it… and I had one very bad one as soon as I hear my voice and haven’t been able to go back to listening to it again.
...It’s like I have this mental blockage that makes me forget what I’ve realized. (Inner foo maybe?)
I've been through this. It's almost like, and tell me if it's not the case for you, like you are listening to another person speaking. I sort of, couldn't believe that I had that conversation, and yet it happened. I listened to yours just now so I could remember, and I can just hear it in your voice. You sounded nervous and vulnerable, and it seemed to me like you really had to get the truth of what happened out there. It was scary to me just talking about my issues; I was trained to be quiet about what happened to me, that kind of isolation goes hand in hand with abuse.
I grew up feeling dissociated, so these issues were out of my mind most of the time. Bringing them back to the forefront was both hard and painful. I don't have any experience with sexual abuse but I know the feeling of toxic shame, as if I'm somehow stained by my experience. Hearing the truth of the situation can be shocking to the point that you would rather not think about it. I'm not sure how your situation has changed since the call, but you may be afraid of hearing the call again because there is something there that might push you towards a particular action that you are afraid of taking. So just like with past negative experiences that you might repress, you sort of forget important details that have consequences you don't like to think about. (or have strong feelings of anxiety)
It’s hard to show the emotion and pain I feel through typing, but I’m trying the best I can… I grew up as an only child, and my family never called me brave, or strong as a person. My boyfriend brought it up that maybe I feel so strongly when I hear other people call me brave and strong because I never was recognized for that as a child. I would like to hear other’s thoughts on this if at all.
Does anybody have any suggestions or advice on what could help me get through this? It’s really hard to grow as a person with this cement block chained to my foot…
It's worse than that, they actively opposed your bravery and your strength. You said that your mother would stop you from doing things, tell you that you couldn't, and that you self-attack about this stuff even as an adult. They treated you as though you were incompetent, and prevented you from mastering anything for yourself.
There is no easy answer for this kind of situation. I think the most important thing is to keep in mind that nothing that happened to you was your fault, and that your choices are perfectly fine. The hardest part for me is the self-attacking or bossing myself around, so I need to remind myself that there is nothing that I "should" do or "should" feel. You've had people trying to control you for most of your life, so maybe now you can show your inner-selves what it is like to be accepting, gentle, and patient instead.
You are brave and strong, simply acknowledging and attempting to deal with these issues proves that. Good luck on your journey.
What are you listening to right now?
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Here's a passionate new song from Lindsey Stirling featuring Lzzy Hale. Always love hearing her violin.