Josh F

Great rap and this Baba guy is dope. Thanks for the link

I'm actually of the mindset naturally that Sam criticizes coming from the secular left. As an atheist I truly do struggle to believe that people are actually religious. Just the other day I was in a small town that had a church. My girlfriend said we should go inside and check it out. I was prepared to make a bunch of Jesus jokes, but when I got inside there was these two men praying sincerely. I was oddly shocked. This wasn't Sunday Mass, these guys actually sought the comfort of religion and prayer and Jesus. It weirded me out. I was going to take a funny picture with this statue of the pope, but I realized then I'd be offending these two guys, who both seemed to be going through something deep. I think Sam is right, there is something about secular people who struggle to comprehend how sincerely people believe in their religion. I'm guilty of the feeling, even though I know its wrong.

This was actually a very good debate, and I was surprised to find myself on rare moments agreeing with these guys.

Social programs not unconditional money. Welfare for example comes with a wide list of conditions which are intrusive and destructive, including letting social workers come into your home and potentially take away your children for non-violent offenses like smoking pot in the house. The cliche that nothing is free is practically axiomatic.

Oh yes, excellent point. I think I should be more clear and say Human History, in that certainly theories like Evolution are based on history and entire fields of science as well like Geology or Astronomy. Yet History is based on scattered evidence and piles of contradictory recorded opinions. Though cliche, things like "History is written by the winners" produces a difficult to sift through bias in any historical interpretation. Then you have another great enemy to the accuracy of history which is the erosion and destruction of evidence. Also history as a field has its own competing ideologies (the Great Man Theory vs the Trends and Forces Theory) which are often, if not always, wrapped up in political ideologies like Howard Zinn (or these goofy left anarchists). My skeptical meter just goes up when anyone is doing history as objective truth.

I would love to discuss these topics, truly, but I'm going to avoid it in this particular thread if you don't mind. If you'd like we can even briefly chat about it privately, or make another thread to discuss it. I'll just caveat by saying Deconstructionism or post-modernism isn't about those ideas, but that those ideas use deconstructionism to reach their conclusions. Alright, first of all thanks for this reply. I think I understand your point. The only difference I see between the If/Then statement in the Coherent Theory of Truth compared to the Correspondence Theory of Truth is that the Coherent Theory says it is true within the "if" or the "specific set of propositions" whereas the Correspondence Theory says it is true within reality. The correspondence model is a metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, the coherent model is ametaphysical, meaning it isn't dependent on any externality called reality. Thank you. And yes exactly, and thanks for the clarification. If memory serves, this is the story of elliptical geometry, and even more guys came in and created hyperbolic geometry. What is interesting about the different geometries is that they invalidate each other. For example in Euclidian Geometry adding the angles of a triangle always equals 180 degrees. In the other two models, adding a triangle's angles up yields in one case always less than 180 degrees and in another case always more than 180 degrees. Additionally, while Euclidean geometry is very functional on a small and observable scale, there is an argument that these theories do not conform to reality because space is never flat, though on a micro-scale close enough to being flat as to be negligible. Thank you. I tried to explain the point briefly to EndTheUsurpation above, but in a nut shell this epistemology opens philosophy up to several new and very interesting concepts and approaches to problem solving. Clubbing nihilists over the head is just a welcomed byproduct, though in fact the post-modernist canon does include Nietzsche who is sometimes considered to be a nihilist. It borrows heavily from the existentialists and the language philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, who are fascinating philosophers not often discussed here mostly because they don't fall into the classic or metaphysical canon (Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, etc) or the moral philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, Rand, Hume, Russell, etc) who are also extremely interesting. In a longer project, philosophically, I'd like to reconcile the principles of FDR with this other canon as well: specifically Private Property, Peaceful Parenting, Rational Ethics, Anarchy, etc. I think in doing so there is great value to the movement, which often appeals more to traditionalists and conservatives because it is objective, but whose principles may also appeal to a wider net of people who are more 'left' but not necessarily passionate advocates of the state. One example I'll mention is Queer Theory and the Gay Rights Movement, which talks often about issues like the violence of state power, empathy and peaceful parenting and in practice is extremely similar to our community with much different philosophical origins.

Well to your question, this is not about math. I don't think I'm personally capable of debating math with any real mathematician. I think I can generally explain these ideas and their implications and why they're relevant to the Coherence Truth Theory. This is very much a philosophical question, primarily epistemological, though subsequently metaphysical as well. To your point about truth as a system which refines itself based on empiricism: empiricism is a consistent (coherent) and valid 'set' of principles. In this way we can take something like the Theory of Evolution and say that it is valid according to the principles of empiricism. We couldn't say that the Theory of Evolution is valid according to the principles of mathematics. This doesn't invalidate mathematics or the Theory of Evolution. Geometry would be the inverse, as it conforms to the principles of Mathematics but not with Empiricism (as it is not a byproduct of observing reality). So this theory doesn't invalidate empiricism or reason, but it does validate several other schools of thought that are essential to post-modernism: specifically deconstructionism. Deconstructionism is a postmodern idea that, without getting into a ton of detail (as it requires), meaning is a fluid, transitory, unstable and a metaphoric process limited by its context, contingency, etc. One idea being that all meaning is within a context of the meaning of other things, all of which are in a constant state of flux. That idea is called Deference. I'd love to discuss the implications of these philosophical proposition as I think there are many, but I fear it may distract from and be irrelevant towards understanding the argument itself outside of consequential outcomes. So I'm going to mention a couple without trying to debate the merits of those particular theories: Queer Theory is a big one, another one is what is sometimes called Political Correctness which is changing words like fireman to firefighter in order to change the value of a word without changing its literal meaning.

The most dangerous religion in the world is Statism, and these gentleman are both fundamentalists. Nonetheless I'm gunna watch this.

I'm concerned that we're talking about different things. This isn't an advocacy of cultural rituals. Ritual's can be "Taco Tuesday" in one family and "Sunday Night is Game Night" within another family. Rituals can be that you and your friends grab a beer together every Friday after work. They can also be more valuable, like the above mentioned bed time ritual, or annually celebrating an event like your marriage. There is nothing irrational about it and nothing violent about it. So lets use one of my examples and see if argument matches. You and your buddies, every Friday night, go out for a beer together. There is no leader, it is mutual. There is no chance of hurting someone (unless you hit them on the head with the beer bottle). You can 'get out of it' whenever you want without sacrificing your friendships. This is why I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

This is hardly science fiction at this point, even Facebook uses it to 'tag' people automatically. Its pretty wild stuff, and I'm cautiously optimistic about its implementation in a free society, but am a little more pessimistic of its implications within statism.

I'm interested in fleshing out some of these ideas, introducing a more nuanced idea of post-modernism, and correcting some common assumptions. I'm very familiar with the common arguments presented against post-modernism within Objectivism, so my goal is to discuss those criticisms from a very specific post-modern argument. Primarily, Post-Modernism is generally considered a fairly broad term and as such it is hard to narrow down a specific thesis. Commonly, but not necessarily accurate, it is considered to be the argument that "truth is subjective." This is NOT the argument being made in this post. Many post-modern philosophers diverge greatly in their arguments, from Derrida's ideas on symbols and Rorty on the idea of metaphor and contingency. I'd like to discuss a specific post-modern idea. Unlike the majority of post-modernists who argue for an idealist and subjective epistemology, this theory makes a slightly different argument. The theory is called the Coherence Theory of Truth. This is not a subjective model of truth, which would make claims like "truth is in the eye of the beholder." This is a relative theory of truth, in so much as truth is neither said to exist in 'reality' nor to exist exclusively within a single subject (meaning truth isn't just random made up crap by some guy, nor is it something which exists extrinsically). This is the definition of the Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is that which is coherent within a specified set of propositions. There is no single set of truth, but rather an assortment of truths relative to their coherence within a system or set of propositions. I will give examples in a second (holding on to the edge of your seat, I know). This theory is in contrast to the Objectivist theory of truth called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. In the Objectivist model, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true". Now lets get to some examples of the Coherence Theory of Truth. The best and most practical example comes from the history of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Newtonian Physics, and Euclidian Geometry. (Run for the hills, this is about to get nerdy!) Newtonian Physics were based in large part on Euclidian Geometry. Euclidian Geometry is based on axiomatic proofs. One of these axioms is the Parallel Postulate, also called Euclid's Fifth Postulate. It states "for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there is exactly one line through A that does not intersect ℓ" Within normal Euclidian Geometry, this axiom is true. However, Euclid made an assumption which went unchallenged for centuries. He incorrectly, though intuitively, defined space as flat planes. Regardless, Euclid's axioms are all internally consistent and excellent for basic geometry. In the Euclidian model, for example, we all know that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. There are, however, two equally consistent and axiomatic propositions for geometry which contradict Euclid's Fifth Postulate. The first is Elliptic Geometry and the second is Hyperbolic Geometry. These non-Euclidian types of Geometry proves to be essential to Einstein's Theory of Relativity (specifically Hyperbolic Geometry). The difference is that these types of Geometry do not treat space as a flat plane. In the Elliptic version, space curves in on itself like a sphere. Think of the Latitude lines on a map of the Earth. In this model, parallel lines are impossible as eventually all lines intersect (at the North and South Pole, so to speak). The axiom is written as "In the elliptic model, for any given line ℓ and point A, which is not on ℓ, all lines through A will intersect ℓ." The Hyperbolic model, however, places space on a saddle shape (and infinitely outwardly extending curve, generally in the shape of a Pringles' Chip). In this model, the axiom is written as "In the hyperbolic model, within a two-dimensional plane, for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there are infinitely many lines through A that do not intersect ℓ." The point being that there are infinite non-intersecting lines. While Euclidian geometry is essential to modern Physics, Hyperbolic Geometry is used in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So what is the point? Well each type of Geometry is based on internally consistent axioms, yet contradict one another. They all have practical utility, from building a table or house to space travel and planetary orbit. This is not a debate about which theory of Gravity is correct, ignoring perhaps new theories in Quantum Gravity, Eistein's model is far more accurate than Newton's (which was, for example, unable to explain the orbit of Mercury). The point is the similarly functioning, yet fundamentally contradictory models of Geometry. To tie this into the Coherence Theory of Truth. The Coherence Theory of Truth states that each Geometry is true within its own set or system of axioms. Though the theories contradict one another, they are consistent unto themselves. This is the purposed definition of Truth, that which is consistent within its own limited context. This reconcile's Post Modern epistemology, which states that Truth is contingent and contextual, with the Objectivist argument that truth corresponds to 'reality'. This also reconciles Argumentation Ethics, and does not dismiss the majority of conclusions within Objectivism. Instead Truth is that which is internally coherent, without conforming, corresponding, or congruent to an external reality (Objectivism) and without being subjective, inconsistent, or pragmatic (Subjectivism). Sorry for the wall of text, wish I was better at explaining this.... let me know what ya'll think.

Any argument from history can't be universal. History, not unlike literature, is subject to a lot of interpretation. One historian can see that the depression was a byproduct of government intervention and another can say it was a byproduct of free markets. I love history, but its hard to reconcile with philosophy.

I mean look, I completely understand your points. I'm pretty similarly minded when it comes to shit like Fathers Day and Valentine's Day. I'm not talking about past superstitions though, I'm talking about creating your own initiations, rituals, ceremonies, etc. We do it all the time, in general. With kids, parents sometimes have a 'going to bed' ritual where teeth get brushed, clothes changed, reading a book or whatever. I've read some information about that kind of consistency being especially good for a young and developing mind. I've been an atheist since like... almost forever. I don't think it is healthy to interject superstition into anything, even innocuous stuff like saying "Salud" when someone sneezes (as they say where I live) or holding your breath in a car while you drive through a tunnel. Its all kind of goofy and meaningless. However, what I'm really getting at here is something different: Designing and celebrating markers of achievement. Cultures do it universally, though the ceremony is always different they all do it. There is a reason, a logic, behind the concept even if it is so often warped by religion and greeting card companies. I think it is a positive way of inculcating someone into maturity, unlike the average American experience which I think is often stressful for people. You're 18, here's a cigarette some porn, now get a job. It doesn't feel like "wow I did it" to many people, instead they're consumed with dread, frozen in procrastination, unclear of their expectations or their larger roll within society. Its disorienting.

The only thing that I think needs to be said is PLEASE STOP MUMBLING!!!! Has no one ever said that to him? Its like a Steven Wright bit, but not funny.

Why is arbitrary irrational? The world is not only logic, right? Aesthetics comprise a large part, not only of philosophy, but our daily lives. Culture, fashion, art, entertainment, creativity, self expression, parties, dances, jokes, etc. Also I don't think celebrating milestones or accomplishments is arbitrary at all. Having a bar mitzvah when you're 13 might be arbitrary as a year, but the idea that at this date the kid becomes responsible for their own ethics and accountable for their own actions seems common throughout cultures. In the US, the age is arbitrarily 18, and latino cultures it is 15. Unlike turning 18 in the US though, children in these ceremonies are more clearly explained their rights and responsibilities. But initiation happens at different ages for different kids for different things, certainly. I'm not bogged down by the traditional or nostalgic approach to these ceremonies, only the concept. Don't want to always throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because Jesus didn't exist doesn't mean the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill is a bad idea.

Well, as a gringo, this sounds like 9/11. England and even France are going through similar bouts of nationalism in light of the ISIS beheadings. I have no unique solutions, sorry to say.

Khan is great yeah, but here is thing: there is not right way to teach everyone. I think a plethora of innovative, unique, and as cheap as possible solutions to education are ideal. And it already exists, its called the internet. 101 ways to learn everything, yes, even that.

I like that article, I think its a really good quality to find the humor in such depressing shit.

I had to look this up. 37% of muslims are white, the largest racial demographic of Muslims. Then 24% black, 20% asian, and 4% hispanic. The rest are "others"

I can relate to this question. From my own experience I remember being held accountable for every dollar my parents spent on me. If I got a new toy, it also came with stories about how great my parents were, how sacrificing and hard working they are, etc. And then if I didn't respect the toy I was ungrateful. When I was a young kid my parents once sat me down and said "we can either buy a new oven, or send you to Karate class, which would you prefer?" Being a kid of course I said I want to take Karate class. Little did I know I was signing an invisible contract with my parents that said every time you don't feel like going to Karate class we're going to throw the oven in your face and make you feel guilty. Though not raised poor or rich, in the end everything I desired became a reflection of my ungrateful selfishness.

This isn't about their 12th birthday, it is about them going to the next level of education, in this context. I think you're right that putting it at a certain age or certain date is arbitrary, but if it corresponds with real life mile stones like graduation or maybe getting a job? Dont think I made that clear, so my bad.

Yeah, it isn't binding at all. It can be wrong to murder, and yet I can still murder people, its very doable. The point of philosophical ethics compared to other systems is that it isn't about controlling human behavior. When the church tells you not to steal and threatens you with hellfire, they're trying to control you. When an objective moralist says don't steal even if there are no personal negative consequences, they're empowering you. They're accepting that you have moral agency.

Yes, private property only functions as a concept if people adhere to it. Much like language or morality or the rules to a game. Private property does not 'exist' since it is conceptual, but as a concept it is superior to other concepts of property because it is rationally consistent and provides objective rules for ownership claims. All other concepts are inferior because they're fundamentally rationally inconsistent. For example, slavery is an inconsistent model because two functionally identical entities have competing or contradictory definitions of property. The owner must own himself, but must claim the slave is incapable of self-ownership. The slavery model works like this "people with x arbitrary characteristics are capable of self ownership, and people without x are not capable of self ownership." This model is therefor not universalizable. It can not be true for all people in all times. Only private property can be true for all people in all times. And to clarify by 'x arbitrary characteristic' I mean being an owner was often predicated on things like skin color, wealth, family name, your ability to swing a sword, etc.

Ownership is a concept, it doesn't physically exist nor does it come divinely inspired from some world of the forms. Private property is a concept that you own yourself and the effects of your actions. The acceptance of property rights is internally and rationally consistent. The acceptance of any other concepts of poverty is rationally inconsistent. So lets say there is no 'private property' and I take something from the commons and use it exclusively. Since there was no owner, since in this model no one 'owns' private property, one can not say you "took" something. Additionally, anyone else attempting to use that object has no greater claim on it than you do. Therefor you have no responsibility to share or return the object. If you don't own it, they don't own it, and can't claim any injustice in you maintaining exclusive control over the object. How can someone make a claim about what you can or can't own if they themselves do not own it? Where does their 'right' to it come from and why doesn't that right extend to you?

Its actually kind of hilarious, imo. Its this like internal battle within the left, because rest assured they're quite divided on this topic. On one hand, islam is sexist and intolerant of homosexuality, divorce, abortion, etc. Traditional lefty values. On the other hand, some lefties think it is intolerance to condemn an individual based on his affiliation with a larger group. (unless you're white, male or christian). Its only funny because its such a clear contradiction that it practically single-handedly disproves the entire social justice ideology of the left. Its like the right with small government and large military, these just super incongruous world views.