Lians

I really enjoyed these. Where do I punch my geek card?

Since no context for the question was provided, I assumed they were talking about comparing the value of money and human lives in the abstract. In other words, I read the question as: "Does the value of money trump the value of human life?" Note the ambiguous use of irrelevant here. You can just as easily interpret the question as: "Is it possible to save human lives without spending money?" Here's another related version: "Is spending money relevant to saving human lives?" This is why Stef puts such an emphasis on precise language when debating philosophy. For example, the author of the questionnaire uses should to refer to both moral propositions and behavioural guidelines. This approach allows him to easily fit people's malleable interpretation into an agenda, hence why you get shit like governments saving people's lives through taxation. The test essentially evaluates your conclusions, not your understanding of the methodology. It's akin to claiming that someone doesn't understand the principles of mathematics because he made an error in his calculations. That may very well be true, but you won't be able to confirm the claim unless you examine his or her methodology. Did you see any questions like this one: "Reason is necessary but not sufficient in establishing the truth of a proposition. [Agree/Disagree]" How about this one: "Empirical evidence trumps reason. [Agree/Disagree]" Let's assume you disagree with the first proposition but agree with the second. Beep! Why didn't you see questions like these in a "philosophical health check?" The answer to this can be the best take away from the whole ordeal. Having said all this, I think I've derailed the thread too much. Apologies to the author.

Leaving an empty line after every paragraph should fix the formatting of your post. You can still edit it. If people were so easily swayed by reason, the world we live in would make no sense. This is why Stef puts such an emphasis on self-knowledge in his work. Also, most economists are academics and their livelihoods depend on the state. They've got all the incentives in the world to avoid consistency with regards to the violence of the state.

Yeah, the language is not particularly precise. I read the analysis that you get after you complete the test and it said that I have a contradiction in my beliefs since governments save lives and therefore higher taxes that go to 3rd world countries as financial aid should be justified based on my answer to the money-lives question.

I enjoyed reading your post and the rigour you've put into it is commendable! As a quick side note, I had to rely on the PDF due to poor html formatting. You mentioned that you have a background in the sciences, so I won't go into all the issues of mathematical modelling as a means of prediction. On the micro level, the difference between mainstream economics and the Austrian school is quite simple - consistency. There's an emphasis on consistency in purely deductive theories. This, I suspect, is the reason why Austrians avoided the trap of recasting the violence of government as benevolence. The initiation of force on one's person and property clearly invalidates the premise of private property. Therefore, you'd expect the accuracy of the Austrian theory to be proportional to the degree of freedom that exists in any given society. Naturally, this applies to mainstream economics as well. Violence is also why you can't expect the predications of economic theory to have the same degree of consistency as a physics theory. No politician can outlaw the laws of thermodynamics, but he can sure as hell influence the premises of economics. Peter Schiff 's success in predicting changes in the market comes not only from his understanding of Austrian theory but also from his uncanny ability to discern the effects of violence. After all, a new or existing law may profoundly impact the operations of the market. In comparison, mainstream economics constantly fails in its predictions because it has the "violence is good" blinders on. Stef goes into all this in one of his podcasts:

Can you give a brief summary? I'm curious about Stewart's arguments.

The context of the question and subsequent analysis implied that if you could save a life, the financial cost would be irrelevant. Governments aren't saving lives. No saving lives, no logical connection, no contradiction.

There's a reason why I didn't take this approach. Suggesting a contradiction based on a matter of practicality is insulting to philosophy. I actually elevated the person who came up with the test above the people who claim that the principles of anarchism are wrong because they're impractical.

Do you mind explaining how this principle applies to the case of this thread?

I'm glad you found value in philosophy! You'll reap even more benefits as the insights settle in your mind over time.

You're making quite a leap from unnecessary to necessity. Following basic guidelines to, say, not set the surrounding environment on fire when you're building a house is quite different from fundamental survival needs. Why do you assume that I'm making moral propositions with my answer to that question? It's quite clear that you can't universalize the money-lives proposition because spending all your money to save people's lives will put your own life in danger. That being said, no sum of money can bring back the dead, so financial considerations, within moral bounds, are irrelevant when it comes to avoiding the ultimate end. For example, I'll gladly go into debt to avoid dying from cancer. However, I won't kill and steal to finance my treatment. The test would present me with truth if it didn't rely on faulty premises (governments save the lives of people in the developing world) and logical fallacies (appealing to objective value by comparing cars to other means of transportation while ignoring the context). I wouldn't put stock in my ability to reason. As long as I adhere to the methodology of philosophy, my conclusions aren't particularly important.

It's a rare treat to have Stef come across the Atlantic. I'm up for a meet up in Amsterdam!

An interesting video. The title ties well into his thoughts on how society attacks male vulnerability. Without vulnerability, genuine connection is impossible. He's got interesting stuff to say about male sexuality in his other videos. I subscribed to his channel and will be following his content. Thanks for sharing, xelent!

If they were honest with themselves, they'd probably answer your question with the following: "I am my projections."

I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs. Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. The avoidance of context here is quite amusing. How about we build a railway to every place that's inconvenient for walking or cycling? That will surely help the environment. I can theoretically walk anywhere, so we might as well drop the bicycles and trains option. That will surely make the false dilemma more obvious. I reckon the people/person who designed this "health test" aren't particularly good at discerning contradictions. A quick look at the front page proves my point ("Peter Singer & The Drowning Child", "Should You Kill The Fat Man?" and so forth). Still, for a five minute mental exercise in analysing shitty philosophy, the test isn't half bad.

So, the host of a show about personal freedom shouldn't be free to choose how he acts. Did I get that right? I bet that will be very appealing to people yearning for freedom...

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you're a terrible person who's completely beyond salvation. So what? Why should that stop you from trying to make restitution for your wrongdoings? Why should you stop working on yourself? People with no legs don't lie in bed until they die. Sure, they won't be Olympic runners, but so what? Aren't those inner voices trying to shackle you to the past? Who do they belong to? Whoever taught you the language of abuse will be quite happy if you to remain frozen in a perpetual state of self-attack. Why should you let them win?

This may not be all that helpful but I've got a few thoughts on the notion of educational structure. It's one of those terms that only exists in state-land. Structure in education is a euphemism for an indoctrination template. A template that you can shove down children's throats until they sing songs of their masters As is usual with violence, structure signifies the opposite of what it claims to represent. You cripple children until they're so incapable of acquiring knowledge on their down that they have to rely on someone else to tell them what to do. Give me a recipe by which I can live my life, master! Structure my ass. Do engineers design the same bridge over different terrains? Do bridges lack structural integrity because their design is driven by the specifications of a particular environment? The principles of engineering remain the same and that's all that matters. Don't sweat the lack of structure. Be proud of it.

Billy would certainly be an interesting guest. He seems curious about the root causes of apathy and complacency in the face evil. Stef has a thing or two to say about that.

The guy agreed with Stef on the issue of mental illness, but as it turns out, he didn't like the rest of this show's content. It's a good reminder of how crossroads in life tend to work.

I recently parted ways with all four of my best friends along with the associated acquaintances. I don't live near a philosophical hub, so this board excepted, I've settled for rather dull and short interactions with the people I can't avoid (landlords, colleagues and so forth). I'll be moving to a different city in a few months and my situation might change with regards to that. My outlook on friendship has changed dramatically over the last few months. It took quite a bit of work, but I'm now clear on what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship - virtue. It may sound simple but my history made this glaringly obvious truth quite difficult to see. I understood the theory but was blind to the evidence, which is not a great place to be.

Stef touches on a good strategy for dealing with abusive parents in this podcast: FDR 1685 - Virtue, Ethics, UPB and APA http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1685_Ethics_UPB_APA.mp3 Other than trusting your instincts, appeal to the parent's self-interest. Ultimately, the goal is not to change the behaviour of the parent (that's not likely to happen) but to demonstrate to the kid that the parent's actions are wrong.

A core part of working on self-knowledge is not ignoring "irrational thoughts" but confronting and cross-examining them. Armed with philosophy and Socratic questioning, you can try to engage these thoughts in a conversation. See for yourself if they're irrational and look for their origin. The form of this conversation, whether writing, talking out loud, meditating or something else, depends on what works for you.

Yeah, focusing on disciplines puts too much emphasis on knowledge as a goal, not a means to an end. If you can teach your daughter how to be good at learning, she can digest any book or article you throw her way. What they call maths in school and most textbooks is little more than symbolic manipulation and memorization, which is a fine way of putting someone to sleep. Mathematical thinking is a different matter altogether. I haven't looked into beginner-level maths books, so I can't make any recommendations. I'll leave you with this story though: Judging Books by Their Covers - Richard Feynman

Things should be fine as long as you continuously negotiate and refine the list. Make sure she's clear on the state-imposed limitations as well. Letting her plan and design her curriculum (with your input) could be a fantastic lesson in itself. Right now, your approach is centred around disciplines, not activities. This is how we are taught in school, but that's not how real-life works. The ability to research and acquire skills on demand is foundational to all competitive free market industries that I've seen (particularly in the management and leadership roles). This means that you're faced with a task and you need to figure out how to accomplish it. Do I need maths? Do I need programming? Do I need artistic skills like composition and lighting? Your approach can also be a little more integrated in terms of knowledge. From what I've observed, there's a slow move away from the do one thing and do it really well of the past century to a more Renaissance-like do a few things well and learn how to incorporate them. For example, what if she reads a work of fiction and decides to interpret it with a drawing? This activity alone can improve both her artistic and analytic thinking by teaching her how to visualize and interpret information, understand metaphors and construct images. All of this in addition to the obvious reading and drawing. My starting point when I'm thinking about education is identifying the principles that underlie schooling and reversing them: Discipline-based <-> Activity-based Restricted time flow <-> Unrestricted time flow Directed <-> Self-directed Disconnected skill acquisition <-> Integrated skills acquisition ... Balancing both sides can be quite challenge. This is why you need the continuous input of your daughter to figure out what works and what doesn't.