Jose Perez

Sue the mother. Sue the parents. Nobody else here shows the clearest and biggest criminal intent.

I can see it... [snooze] It's a free society... Everyone has turned philosophical thanks to widespread psychotherapy. The advert by the side of the road reads: 'Skype. Because philosophy is a spoken discipline'. Skype's stocks have gone through the roof... But on the other side of the world a team of researchers works on what could be the demise of this apparent monopoly of the philosophical arena: mass teleportation. They're trying to respond to people's complaints that Skype might be distorting the validity of their philosophical propositions through the use of secret credibility-algorithms that selectively target individuals, delaying their signal to the point that their communication is regarded as non real-time... Youtube stocks are also going strong, as the more prominent philosophers respond to this situation by a video uploading campaign where they try to compensate for their lack of Skpye credibility by issuing their statements in increasingly corageous manners; some of them even resorting to acrobatics.

Shocking! How that school happened to turn violent and neglectful on that day for the mother [] What a cunt.

Worrying about the morality of downloading is like worrying about taking unemployment benefits. A free society would never have produced these state-of-nature feasts of the Internet and the welfare state. I'd say we have more important things to worry about - and we can compensate producers as we feel is right and within our possibilities.

Bob is a UPB compliant name thanks to its reversibility.

Sorry, I think that question belongs to a thread such as "Philosophy is a discipline for people who have done therapy". I also don't want you to have to tell me what you think on a message board, as that wouldn't be very "corageous" or "philosophical", and then I'd be missing out on the truth.

Great arguments there Fingolfin. I don't think a lot of people can honestly say that their major philosophical breakthroughs have not come from reading some kind of text.

I wouldn't say it's a written discipline either, because Socrates and many others sure must have done a lot of talking. But, as you say, imagine where we would be if Plato had say: "nope, I ain't transcribing that... Philosophy is a spoken discipline!" [ROFL]

Stefan Molyneux also says that "everyone is a philosopher". Either you call 'philosophy' an ideal or rational philosophy (as Stef or Ayn Rand say they champion) or you see it in the broader traditional way, which every human being practices in their fundamental need to undertand the world or justify behaviour (culture). If Ayn Rand released a music single with lyrics about how self knowledge and psychology are not necessary, and that she is the only thing you need to see the truth and be happy, would you also call that philosophical music? She certainly would.

In your view it's "courage" and engaging with people who disregard the truth, no doubt.

This is why I said has he got the courage to say it to that someone's face, who is likely to be responsible and invested in his philosophy regardless of his preferred medium to communicate it... I mean what on earth has courage got to do with whether you choose to speak or not; go tell the average child! The lack of empathy and idealistic narrow-sightedness required by such comments is just monumental.

Have you got the "courage" to say this to that someone's face?

I'd appreciate if you could explain this, since I am of the complete opposite opinion. Sophists love speech, just look at politicians! The amount of tricks a real time / live interaction brings with it as a possibility is orders of magnitude higher.

This comment is full of assumptions and cries out for supporting citations of any kind. www.freedomainradio.com

The true self cannot die, so there is always some empathy left. Still, I think choice is what determines if you are a sociopath – same as your moral nature. The choice to do or intend evil and the consent required to split the personality to allow this to happen.

I don't understand the distinction. The intellect is not separate from the emotions (just look at brain research). All music is an expression of the intellect as much as it is emotional. Whether the intellect is functioning properly is another matter.

I get what you mean, but I think this whole discussion is around what you see as "inventing philosophy", i.e. the pursuit of truth. The people who need a sales pitch would be just non-philosophical people and you'd be trying to sell philosophy to them... which is not the same. What Stef says means that it is preferable to use speech in order to arrive at philosophical truth among philosophical people, and in line with what you say, I say that this is like a sales pitch – not a true statement at least. What do you think?

That would be an argument for sophistry, not philosophy. An objectively better computer doesn't need a sales pitch.

Sorry, meant to say it invalidates the other (2nd) statement where Maciej says that a real life interaction makes one more able to empathise and understand...

Also point out that the fight-or-flight mechanism evolved to deal with real time, real life interactions, which invalidates the following, in my opinion. It's easier to empathise + sympathise with a snake when you are not near it. (Not saying everyone is a snake but you know the chances when it comes to doing philosophy.) And as for being able to engage someone's attention, I gotta tell ya', if a simple written proposition that contradicts something you regard as true is not engaging enough then you cannot be very philosophical God bless Facebook and the like for being able to get something more philosophical out of people, that they would otherwise not show for fear of being attacked in social situations. I think this is very clear.

Hi Maciej, I really value your analysis. I had thought somebody would make the same case you made, perhaps Stef himself. First of all, if you fully agree with my arguments I don't think you can say that "P is a spoken discipline" statement is a true statement. If it is an expression of preference then why not express it as such? If I am a really skilled fingerstyle guitar player and I say "guitar playing is a fingerstyle discipline", what am I really saying? If I then go on to provide arguments as to how fingerstyle produces more nuances, connects with people's finger-wagging animal insticts... would you – perhaps as a plectrum guitar player – say that I am saying I just "prefer fingerstyle playing"? I do agree that it can be more pleasurable and that there is much more information being conveyed by real time interaction. (By the same argument Skype and internet chat rooms can hardly compete with a face to face real world interaction, so you might as well just use a forum board.) What I don't agree with is that that information necessarily helps the pursuit of truth. It's quite obvious that it does not if you see how often people change their minds even about basic propositions like on this thread LOL. Those empathetic cues that you are talking about can be equally meant to protect falsehood (stem from the false self). In fact, given the way we have been conditioned in social interaction and the fact that defending falsehood is defending some kind of initiation of force, then being a true self in that situation is hardly going to be a pleasant experience in most cases. People have long forgotten their curious, trusting child selves in real time interactions, and replaced them with big armours and an empathy for the other's own armour – which does not make for philosophical interaction. I can understand that, if you feel Stef has been a saviour for you, you will have a tendency to excuse him for making these self-centered and unconscious statements. But Stef has not saved you because he did not make any choices for you, as I am sure he agrees.

Are you sure? Have you seen the whole book? (I haven't). The part you quoted earlier is just a commentary by some guy. It may or may not accurately reflect the book. Well, if you reject the interpretation I give based on the information I have seen and the arguments I provide then I guess you'd think I am wrong even if I had read the whole book 3 times. I don't think many editors would include blurbs that contradict the thesis of the book. The illustration about painting the TV is also not anarchy (idiocy?) in the sense of respect for property rights or being "civil", as another comment reads; together with the child being referred to as "little devil" or "Wild Child" it doesn't seem that they understand anarchy as anything much different than the traditional dysfunction within a statist or authoritarian paradigm. It seems to me more like a book for parents: "parent, listen to punk rock and let child break your tv and you will strengthen your status quo". They seem to think that children somehow lack a natural ability to be independent and self-determined, which is completely mistaken. I also don't think the likelihood is that the writers have much an ability to empathise with children and avoid projecting their own "poor little thing" feelings onto them, which further supports what I am saying. Still, I am happy to admit my assessment might well be wrong, as I have not read the book. Look forward to anyone who reads it posting more info here in the future. Of course those rules are chosen. I choose not to steal. A robber chooses to steal. You mistake choosing rules for choosing behaviour. First of all, moral rules are not chosen because they are universal. How do you choose the rule "thou shalt not steal"? You are bound by it whether you like it or not – and subject to its enforcement; what you choose is the behaviour to steal, not the rule. Secondly, when you said ""no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules"", you are clearly referring to rules that can be chosen – as in contracts entered into voluntarily that prescribe positive obligations – which has nothing to do with (universal) moral rules that prescribe – if valid as per UPB – negative obligations (don't steal).

Well, "no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules". What's your point? The book in question clearly does not refer to rules in this way (choice). It also seems that moral rules (government) are an exception in it. Moral rules (like don't steal) are not chosen either. There are no unchosen positive obligations.

A child lashing out at her "loving" parents, like I often see out and about... that's the kind of illustration picture I'd like to see in a book about anarchy for children.

Definitely not anout anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not "no rules". From the book's cover: "After encountering the lively little anarchist in John and Jana's delightful A Rule is To Break, I will always remember the playful little devil with a mind of her own. A children's book on anarchy seems somehow just right: an instinctive, intuitive sense of fairness, community, and interdependence sits naturally enough with a desire for participatory democracy, feminism, queer rights, environmental balance, self-determination, and peace and global justice."--Bill Ayers, author of To Teach: The Journey in Comics and Fugitive Days" It's like some sort of postmodernist look at anarchy. A sad reminder of how confused the world is.