Jose Perez

One does wonder (not) why anyone would cling to a proposition such as "Philosophy is a spoken discipline"

I am also not saying "philosophy is a written discipline".

I have said the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of speech being a preferable means of doing philosophy.

If you are using text in order to avoid spoken interactions, then you are not avoiding fight-or-flight. You are enacting it. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I have. From the moment I learned how to read, I sought comfort in text. That wasn't the fault of speech. That was the fault of the mean people I grew up around. The way to handle fight-or-flight in spoken interactions is to speak with kind people—a therapist, friends, people on the board—and talk about the fear. Then you learn to speak comfortably in real time about your thoughts and feelings. You incorrectly assume that the flight-or-flight mechanism is a negative response, and that the pursuit of truth is more effective without a fight-or-flight mechanism. Sometimes the only rational response is through the fight-or-flight mechanism. Having no fight-or-flight response doesn't make anyone's arguments correct. In fact, if someone believes they are not having such reaction they are most likely dissociated, which is quite frightening indeed.

Are you suggesting that your own preferred philosophical behaviour is an argument? You say that (in real-time interactions) you can "challenge the definitions" and "get real progress going"... Let's pick for example a UPB debate. Who is typically the person challenging definitions? What is the likelihood that the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason, as you know it does, compared to a non real-time interaction?

(12:48) I have heard Stef say this many times before anyway, and I don't think I have ever heard a clear argument. He meant philosophy as the pursuit of truth – being a "tricky thing". In my understanding, yes, he is indicating that if your goal is the common arrival at truth then you should prefer the spoken word to the written one. So according to what you have said (thank you so much) it is clear that the written word is more appropriate for "better knowledge", as you put it. There are a million other arguments in this direction, but I think what we are lacking here is the arguments from the other team; let's hear them?

If you have a compelling argument about philosophy being a spoken discipline and you believe that the concepts and truth propositions involved can be represented by alphanumeric characters, please write them down here!

Anyone up for a written debate on this one? Deaf-mute people, people with speech impediments, people with time constraints, people who like to think twice or in privacy, people who like unequivocal quotes and recorded evidence, people who speak english as a second language, and philosophical babies welcome!

You can't really blame idealists of the free market for arguing against idealists of the free market.

Your logic here is impeccable. Thanks for sharing. :-) His logic is not sound at all. He has twisted the argument in order to support his position while ignoring an obvious truth. FDR Forums belong to Stefan Molyneux, not "the market". There is not a "free market of business" and a separate "free market of ideas". There is only ONE Free Market and it contains the whole of humanity and everything that emerges from it. Compartmentalization is a great way to hide logical fallacies and mental dysfunction, is it not?! The free market will decide if determinism should be discussed by those wishing to discuss determinism starting their own forum and trying to stealing most or all of FDR Forums's users. Not by you or anyone else forcing Molyneux to use his property in a way he disagrees with. I own my home. In my home, I have set down a rule that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ shall not be discussed or debated. Those wishing to do so must leave my home. I invite Person A into my home. However, Person A then violates my rule of no virgin birth discussion. I ask Person A to please not violate my rule. Person A states that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ needs to be discussed as there are many people in the world who believe that it is true. Person A makes the argument that "the market" will decide if the virgin birth should be discussed. I tell Person A he has fogotten where he is and now needs to get the fuck out of my house. The only way for Person A to further his cause is to now trespass on my property by remaining there. Therefore, I remove him, by force if necessary. Person A cries out, "SEE!! HE'S USING VIOLENCE! HE'S A FRAUD!" Now reread my little tale, but replace "the virgin birth of Jesus Christ" with "taking a shit right where you stand as soon as the need arises." Who's the aggressor? Your logic here is impeccable. Thanks for not sharing. :-)[/font]

Interesting view... Non-aggression or any non-action shows no particular interest in the welfare of others; saying it does is not the same. That is the whole idea of passive aggression or deterrence; you might as well say that these are altruistic too because they represent a withdrawal of a possible aggressive action out of a concern for the enemy. Ostracism – which would be used in a free society against aggressors – is perfectly compatible with the NAP and cannot be altruistic either, by the definition of altruism. (EDIT:) Altruism is a predisposition for positive action. The welfare of others requires action, especially actions that are opposite to the individual's own welfare. These are of course the actions that are required of us by false philosophies of all kinds. Again, this would mean that something like self defense is not possible for an altruistic person because they would not be altruistic in that precise moment. Sure, the whole point of altruism is to "bank good points" for aggression that is regarded as legitimate and moral – like self defense is. It starts with the idea that raising your own children is an altruistic action, which is pure evil. The mother "has to" attack the child because he is "selfish"... Parents like to be altruistic a lot; sometimes they will have natural impulses and love for their children, but most often they'll act out of self sacrifice, remind their children who's boss, and plant the seeds of future statism and religion. I hope what I wrote about childhood will clarify and add justification to my belief that it is not BS. Human beings are able to self attack and predict violence, in order to avoid it. Passive aggression is so effective because of this and the fact that this is mostly the kind of aggression that children – who are dependent on their parents – receive. In my view, anarcho-socialists have this motherly fantasy that a society of non-aggression is compatible with a denial of property rights and a scorn for selfishness and capitalism. This stems from what I pointed out above. When most of the aggression is received and repressed by the child from his own "caring" parents in a passive way (perhaps as a result of neglect, or a certain situation with the siblings...) the child becomes susceptible to the violent cues of fellow citizens later in life without the need for overt aggression or threat, and thinks that other people should be susceptible too – thus obviating the need for government. Does that make it clearer? what do you think?

Good points, Demitri. I think you're confusing altruism – a principle for the behaviour of individuals – with "altruism" as an effect of the NAP. Why do you think this is positive? Killing yourself to save others is the paragon of self sacrifice. Yes. That would lead to a discussion on the definition of "benefit to others" – you could argue that because statism produces the greatest benefit to certain others, it still fits the definition of altruism... The reason to uphold the NAP is not utilitarian (benefit), but moral. Altruism is a quality of the individual, as you see in the definition; "others" only makes sense with respect to the individual. Still, I can understand what you mean by (global) "repercussions", but that is an ideal that only comes as an effect of free market principles, and yet free market principles can only be sustained if individuals (peacefully) seek their own self interest – which is the opposite of altruism.

Altruism is a choice you have whether you practice the NAP or not. People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it gives them a "justification" for aggression, especially passive aggression. Your associating altruism with the NAP sounds to me like you view anarchy the way anarcho-socialists do?

Hey Dimitri, I enjoyed reading your intro. Interesting background! What makes you think that other people do not adhere - or think they adhere - to your core belief? I don't think they are calling you a liar. Calling you a liar would mean that they think you are aware of the reasons they are "right", but choose not to acknowledge them; I'd say that they are just calling you ignorant or crazy, as is usually the case. Don't you think? A corollary of this would be that they are the ones who are ignorant, crazy, unconscious, defensive... so how do you justify your irritation as a rational response? What brought you to FDR?

My experience matches that. Beware of compulsive "helpers" and of your own need to help. If the need has the strength of compulsion, then it's a helpless part trying to compensate for what it's lacking. Yes, I could not agree more, I wrote a bit on that in Joseito's previous post. But can you please clarify this statement, "If the need has the strength of compulsion." I don't understand, who's need, and what compulsion. Well the compulsion of helping I'm guessing. But then do you mean if the need of helping has the strength of the compulsion to help? I think the best way to see if a certain motivation to help is unhealthy is to simply ask yourself the objective reasons for it. If the reasons are not based on objective experience (the helped person's behaviour or qualities about them that you like...) but respond to abstract ideals ("the universe is love"), categorizations ("brothers must love one another") or unquestionable propositions ("I love my brother"). When I got to the point of contacting my younger sister about what I was doing not speaking to my parents, I was moved by a certain motivation to help her. I had a simple conversation with her where I tried to remind her of fond experiences we had had as children which I knew were associated to our true selves – I also apologised for my having been abusive towards her at times, which still makes me very sad. To my surprise she had forgotten these early childhood memories, but kept the older ones. I also tried to see if she could question the authority of my parents or see the logical impossibility and abusive nature of the values she was defending with regards to my family – to no avail. This was enough to defuse my original motivation, which I believe was weak anyway because I knew deep down she would not want to change. Right now, even though I can remember how much goodness we shared, I know any motivation to help her would not stem from the right place and would be a completely blind and irrational thing to do in the light of her actual, current behaviour – I think it's unlikely but who knows if she will change in the future. Anyway, I hope this gives you some perspective about your situation with your brother. Have you looked at Ayn Rand's philosophy? I think the idea of clarifies this a lot, since it puts it in a logical perspective. You have to bear in mind that parents are the ultimate "helpers" of their children in bringing them up, and that therefore any motivation to help others in adults is likely to contain the feelings of obligation that bad parents projected onto their children.

No, it is pointed at the helper. Still, you cannot create the example if you are not guided by your own self interest. When we want to help someone so bad that we will resort to these indirect means with a conscious aim to create an impression in the other person, it means that the motivation to help was not healthy ("compulsive" as cherapple was saying).

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Leaving is not something you willingly do or have any "point to create an effect", as you say; it is just a reaction that you will become increasingly unable to repress as you grow in awareness of your past and family situation. (I can imagine this is particularly painful in your situation, where you're struggling to become independent also economically.) What you can do, though, is suppress it. This means that you can accept the knowledge you gain and the difficult emotions it brings but leave them aside for a purpose that you can rationally justify to yourself. Your unconscious will cooperate with you whenever it is really true that you are not able to share what is going on with these people (as in you have economic or personal constraints) – it will even help you lying if need be. On the other hand, you might find that you have a lot to gain from interacting to them still. I think many therapy-hours can be saved with a 5 min. conversation with the right relative/partner in many cases. Have you read Stef's book Real-Time Relationships? Can you explain how your parents impose their will on you? How have your conversations with them about these important choices ended, and do they believe you accept their "reasoning"? You said you wanted to "rationally disconnect myself from the behavior that my parents enact when exercising their will over my choices.", what do you mean by this and how do they exercise it? I think this is important to understand the anxiety you feel. I am very sorry this happened to you, this is terrible... Only you can make your own choices; even if your parents got you to do what they wanted, due to their power over you, it is ultimately you who is choosing to do that – do you agree with this?

Well put. I agree 100%. The only thing I would add is that it's important to keep in mind what the child's natural tendency is and where all his attachment mechanism is pointing: the parents. I think this is very helpful in coming to accept your particular situation and how much of an individual work this is. In my experience, the idea of influencing other people – especially children – really must be given up as a goal to be achieved. With children you have very little influence and you'll probably blow your chances of having any by just thinking about it – and the younger they are the more they get what you are really all about. Similarly, I would encourage anyone to be very skeptical of anyone trying to "save them". It very likely means that they cannot save themselves.

Thank you for sharing this, you put it very well and I felt identified reading it. Here my thoughts: You're not leaving anyone. You (your true self and full integrity) are being left by your family and society. This is a process that is well complete for most by the time they reach 21. You are one of the few who have resisted and want to remain alive and open to reality and reason. This is not easy but don't think you are leaving anyone; in cutting contact you'd simply be enacting the disconnectedness that they caused. I hope this is helpful. I really sympathise with your situation; you don't have to make big compromises, just let it all happen organically as a result of your understanding of your situation - which rationally so also involves your practical needs and well being, of course.

Thanks for that, Marc, but could you answer my questions more specifically? What does it mean that the choice and responsibility is yours/invisible? I find this very unclear. How does "moralistic" judgement not assign responsibility to yourself and others accurately? Why is it even preferable or more truthful to only assign responsibility to yourself with regards to these choices – or isn't this what you are saying? So you and the writer have reasons (you say "advantages") that are objective, which is why you write and elaborate about them. You wish to convince people of the validity of these, supposedly because you recognise that reason and "advantages" are preferable for all, no?

Marc, when you have solid reasons and evidence that a certain course of action is preferable (with all your good intentions) do you also say "I wish..."? Before I reply, could you tell me what yours and the writer's reasons are for this preference? What are the reasons it is important to avoid judging or saying "should"? Do you realise 'reasons' are indeed judgements grounded in reality?

Alright, great point The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts. By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive. Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others You are getting all confused and overcomplicating things because you are unwilling to look at the whole situation from a UPB perspective. As I said, the children in your podcast are already in a situation of non-freedom and everyone there is trying to compensate for the fact that their preferences mean buggerall to start with; which is as hopeless as trying to find a way to behave or talk to each other "productively". Similarly, you are cherry picking on what I said about exploiter/exploited. I think it is clear that I am generally appealing to people's capacity to get out of these dysfunctional relationships (even in the case of children) and did not say that as a way to excuse them.

Yes, somehow. There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited (apart from the parent-child relationship) as you seem to have interpreted, but I like how you label it as trickery. It is trickery that people use against each other to disable each other's minds and capacity to accurately judge – fundamentally to immobilize, since judgement leads to action. This is how slavery takes place and is perpetuated, and it is all an appeal to seeds planted in childhood, of course. But, you see, to say that one does not "submit to external standards" is to say that the main funtion of the mind (apprehend reality = external standards) is disabled, which is exactly what I am denouncing yours and the writer's universal preference would promote. There is no claim of universality in aesthetic judgements like "you're beautiful" – other than "my mind is connected to reality"; this idea that the claim implicates others and its accompanying offense is all in the mind of the person being judged, who would be the exploiter if trying to invalidate it. If this person's mind was connected to reality, and thus able to discern anyone's judgement, it would make little sense that it had a preference for how this judgement was expressed to them – other than a desire to control the other. Think about it. It is no revelation that people have separate minds, so why would anyone be invested in stating the obvious? Why, because they lack self esteem and are sensitive to external judgement themselves as a result of a broken mind that is disconnected from reality and thus cannot put another person's judgement into perspective. There are different degrees of this of course, but that is the pattern. Children will judge their reality in a universal fashion and demonstrate the quality and connectedness of their minds, and the narcissistic parent will take offense at that and try to disable it in various ways... We have these 2 sources of judgement: objective reality and people's words. A healthy mind is concerned with the former, and a broken (abusive) mind is concerned with the latter. Look forward to hearing what you think, or if what I said is clear.

That is how to "free" children from situations in which they are not free or respected to begin with (home, school...), and nevermind the causes they are "bad"... Of course judgement doesn't work with them, since it can only be hypocritical, particularly with attention seekers; it's funny that a teacher, who represents a person the child is forced to listen to (seeks attention) should think that the child seeking attention is somehow an anomaly that came out of nowhere and all... Same old, same old unconsciousness...

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest. Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right? For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so? I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you? Yes. Your wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Just because you leave enforcement or blame out of your conscious picture does not mean you do not have the intention to exercise them. Would you also let your own child moralise others and simply communicate your "wish" for the contrary? Children are very prone to universalising... I am really curious to hear what you would do (or have perhaps already done). No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before? I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning? Well, "I really enjoy looking at you", when, now or always? Could it be because of something else other than me is causing you pleasure? Which part of you is saying that; or is the person who says that always a fully integrated and consistent whole unlike the person who universalises? This is what I mean about how completely detached and unconscious this perspective is, and I say this in all sympathy. Clearly, you and the writer fail to attribute the same qualities to themselves in the (wrong) assumption that reporting on your feelings is always a fully conscious act. Yes, thanks for the chat. I'll reply to the rest later